# Persian Gulf war raises risk of environmental disaster

- Link: https://www.tehranianonline.com/persian-gulf-war-raises-risk-of-environmental-disaster/
- Published: 2026-05-24T12:37:05+03:30
- Author: MohammadReza AbeshAhmadLou

Experts have warned the shallow, semi-enclosed nature of the Persian Gulf makes 
its marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, mangroves, and fisheries, highly vulnerable
to the severe, prolonged, and transboundary contamination caused by military conflicts.

> The recent military confrontations in the Persian Gulf have significantly increased
> risks of environmental catastrophe, including oil spills, destruction of marine
> ecosystems, and contamination of fisheries and coastal infrastructure. 
> Seyed Hossein Mousavian

Mousavian also proposes a “four-point” proposal for exiting the crisis surrounding
the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of the global energy supplies passed 
before the war of aggression on Iran.

Writing on the NDTV, the former Iranian diplomat asks: “If the world depends on 
Hormuz, why does Iran bear the primary burden of maintaining it?”

He suggests “shared responsibility” to keep the strategic waterway safe for navigation,
noting that the “future of the Strait of Hormuz depends not on military coercion
but on diplomatic innovation.”

The following is the text of the article: 

The Strait of Hormuz has evolved from a regional maritime chokepoint into the central
geopolitical fault line of the global economy. During the past several weeks, tensions
between the United States, Israel, and Iran escalated sharply following military
exchanges near the strait, U.S. naval operations connected to “Project Freedom”,
attacks on commercial shipping, and reciprocal accusations of ceasefire violations.
Commercial traffic through the strait has been severely disrupted, oil prices have
surged, and global shipping insurers have warned of systemic economic risks extending
far beyond the Middle East.

Today, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has become more consequential than the 
Iranian nuclear dispute itself. The nuclear issue had already been addressed diplomatically
through United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a binding international framework. The unilateral
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, followed by unlawful and unnecessary military
attacks by the United States and Israel against

Iran in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, fundamentally undermined
the agreement and transformed the Iranian nuclear issue from a multilateral diplomatic
matter into a broader geopolitical confrontation between Iran and a coalition composed
of the United States, Israel, and several U.S.-aligned Arab governments in the Persian
Gulf.

Unlike the nuclear issue, however, instability in the Strait of Hormuz directly 
affects the entire global economy, including energy markets, supply chains, inflation,
food security, and maritime commerce. Iran frames the Strait of Hormuz within the
doctrine of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. From Tehran’s
perspective, repeated military attacks by Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the 1980s,
the extensive economic sanctions regime imposed by the United States, cyber operations,
targeted assassinations, and the more recent Israeli and American military strikes
in 2025 and 2026, have cumulatively imposed trillions of dollars in damage on Iran’s
infrastructure, economy, and national security. Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh
Mohajerani said an early estimate indicates that Iran has suffered about $270 billion
in damages since the start of the U.S.-Israel war on February 28, 2026.

The United States and several European governments have argued that Iran cannot 
lawfully impose transit tolls or fees on vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz because
such a precedent could encourage other littoral states to impose similar charges
in international straits. “Not only is this illegal, it’s unacceptable. It’s dangerous
for the world, and it’s important that the world have a plan to confront it,” said
the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Legally, the concern reflects the transit
passage regime under Articles 37-44 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which protects freedom of navigation through international
straits.

However, the comparison between Iran and other coastal states is fundamentally flawed.
No other littoral state governing a strategic strait has experienced three major
illegal military confrontations – Saddam Hussein’s invasion, prolonged U.S. coercive
policies, and direct Israeli-American military operations against its territory –
while also bearing the primary burden of maintaining regional maritime security 
and environmental protection.

While Iran has never ratified the convention, however, under international law, 
Iran may not be legally entitled to impose unilateral tolls merely for innocent 
or transit passage. Nevertheless, several alternative legal and institutional mechanisms
could provide a lawful framework for cost-sharing and compensation.

First, UNCLOS permits coastal states to recover costs for specific services rendered,
including pilotage support, environmental protection, emergency rescue operations,
anti-pollution measures, maritime traffic management, demining, and navigational
safety systems. Iran could, therefore, lawfully establish specialized maritime service
regimes tied to concrete operational services rather than simple passage itself.

Second, Article 43 of UNCLOS explicitly encourages burden-sharing agreements between
user states and coastal states in international straits. This provision has remained
largely underdeveloped globally. Iran could, therefore, advocate the establishment
of a multilateral “Hormuz Maritime Security and Environmental Protection Fund” under
United Nations or International Maritime Organization supervision. Such a mechanism
would allow energy-importing states, shipping companies, insurers, and Persian Gulf
energy exporters to contribute financially toward maintaining safe navigation, environmental
protection, anti-piracy operations, and post-conflict reconstruction in the region.
This approach would transform the debate from “illegal tolls” into lawful cooperative
burden-sharing.

Third, Iran could invoke emerging principles within international environmental 
law and the law of state responsibility. The recent military confrontations in the
Persian Gulf have significantly increased risks of environmental catastrophe, including
oil spills, destruction of marine ecosystems, and contamination of fisheries and
coastal infrastructure. Under the “polluter pays” principle and broader doctrines
of state responsibility, states contributing to militarization and conflict in the
strait may bear obligations toward remediation and reconstruction. Iran may, therefore,
argue that states participating in military escalation should contribute financially
to environmental protection and maritime stabilization efforts in the Strait of 
Hormuz.

Fourth, there is a historical imbalance in international compensation mechanisms
that remains unresolved. Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United
Nations Compensation Commission established an international mechanism to process
claims and compensation. Iran, despite suffering enormous destruction during Iraq’s
invasion of Iran initiated by Saddam Hussein in 1980, never received a comparable
compensation framework. The absence of such mechanisms has contributed to long-term
regional instability and mistrust between Iran and the Arab neighboring countries,
which supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran.

A future Hormuz framework could, therefore, integrate both maritime security financing
and broader reconstruction arrangements connected to decades of regional conflict.
The strategic reality is that the Strait of Hormuz can no longer be treated merely
as a narrow legal issue of navigational rights. It has become a test case for whether
international law can adapt to asymmetrical burdens imposed on regional states in
periods of prolonged geopolitical confrontation. The existing framework places the
overwhelming responsibility for securing one of the world’s most vital energy corridors
on the coastal states of Iran and Oman in the Hormuz Strait, while the economic 
benefits are distributed globally. Such an imbalance is politically unsustainable
under conditions of war, sanctions, and repeated military escalation.

Ultimately, the future of the Strait of Hormuz depends not on military coercion 
but on diplomatic innovation. A durable solution requires de-escalation between 
Iran, the United States, and the international community, restoration of lawful 
diplomacy, and creation of a multilateral framework balancing freedom of navigation
with equitable burden-sharing, environmental protection, and regional reconstruction.
Without such a framework, the strait risks becoming a permanent epicenter of global
economic instability. With it, however, Hormuz could evolve from a symbol of confrontation
into a platform for cooperative security and international legal innovation.