Explainer: What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
Explainer: What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil.
Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast - home to Iran's only nuclear power station - only to later say the announcement was a mistake.
Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters.
WHAT HAS ISRAEL HIT SO FAR?
Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one.
The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran.
Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb.
The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects.
WHAT FALLOUT RISKS DO THESE STRIKES POSE?
Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far.
He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said.
Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks.
At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said.
The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely."
The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities.
WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS?
The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr.
Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story".
Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added.
James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences".
Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign.
WHY ARE GULF STATES ESPECIALLY WORRIED?
For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardizing a critical source of desalinated potable water.
In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities.
Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water.
In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics.
While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline.
"If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center.
"Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
19 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Forced to wait for Trump, Israel faces strategic dilemma in Iran
Protesters rallying in New York on June 18. US President Donald Trump says he will wait up to two weeks before deciding on a US attack on Iran. PHOTO: REUTERS JERUSALEM – President Donald Trump's decision to defer a US attack on Iran has left Israel in a strategic bind. Israel's main remaining war goal is to wipe out a nuclear enrichment site at Fordo in northern Iran, which is buried so deep underground that Israeli bombs will struggle to damage it. For days, Israeli officials hoped Mr Trump would send US warplanes armed with the only munitions in the world that are deemed powerful enough to destroy Fordo. Now, Mr Trump says he will wait up to two weeks before deciding whether to make such an intervention, a delay that imposes a dilemma on Israel. The longer Israel waits for Trump, the greater the strain on its air defence system. To keep out Iran's ballistic missile barrages, Israel is burning through its stocks of missile interceptors, forcing it to prioritise the protection of some areas over others. As time goes on, that raises the risk of more missiles hitting both civilian neighbourhoods and strategic security sites. With Israel's airspace closed and much of its economic life suspended, the war's protraction will also come at an economic cost. The sooner the war ends, the faster commercial flights will return and businesses can resume full operations. Rather than wait for US help, Israel could decide to attack Fordo alone, taking a chance with the planes and munitions it has at its disposal. Some analysts say Israel could even send commandos to enter and sabotage the site. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at going it alone June 19, saying in a television interview that Israel would 'achieve all of our objectives, all of their nuclear facilities. We have the power to do so'. But experts say this route is fraught with risk and that its effect may be limited. 'It probably won't be on the scale of what the US can achieve,' said Mr Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington. 'If we could do what the US can, we would have already done it.' Another option is for Israel to wind down the war unilaterally, without attacking Fordo. But that approach would leave at least a significant part of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme intact, leaving open the possibility that Iran might create a nuclear bomb that could be used against Israel. For now, Israel does not seem set to take that route. Israel's political leadership has begun to speak explicitly about prompting the collapse of the Iranian regime and assassinating its leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Even if Israel has no real way of toppling his government, the tone of the comments suggest that Israel, at the very least, intends to continue with its strikes for several days. The tone of the Israeli news media on June 20 also indicated continued domestic support for the Israeli campaign, as did new opinion polling. After Israel's attack on Iran, Mr Netanyahu's party is in its strongest polling position since October 2023, when Hamas carried out the deadliest attack in Israel's history. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
31 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Netanyahu's other battle: Swinging Trump and US behind Iran war
Mr Benjamin Netanyahu's lobbying for US President Donald Trump's support against Iran could succeed. PHOTO: REUTERS Netanyahu's other battle: Swinging Trump and US behind Iran war JERUSALEM - Since launching air strikes on Iran last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been working to pull US President Donald Trump into the war, and sway a skeptical American public. In his daily calls and public statements, Israel's longest-serving prime minister has mixed praise and deference for the US leader, while also arguing that the strikes on Iran benefit Americans. 'Do you want these people to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to you?' he asked during an interview on Fox News on June 15. 'Today, it's Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, it's New York,' he told ABC News a day later, arguing that Iran was working on longer-range missiles that would be able to reach US shores in the future. His media blitz came after intensive and not always harmonious exchanges between Mr Netanyahu and Mr Trump this year, with the Israeli leader welcomed twice to the White House since the Republican's return to power in January. The New York Times, citing unnamed US administration sources, reported on June 17 that Mr Netanyahu had asked Mr Trump for US-made bunker-busting bombs capable of reaching Iran's underground Iranian nuclear facilities in an April meeting – but had been refused. Having been elected in opposition to US entanglements overseas and supposed 'war-mongers' in the Democratic party, Mr Trump was seen as reluctant to commit Washington to another unpopular war in the Middle East. Much of his right-wing Make America Great Again (MAGA) coalition is staunchly anti-interventionist, including Vice-President JD Vance, his head of national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, and influential media figures such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. But speaking on June 18, the former tycoon stated clearly that he was considering joining the Israeli campaign directly, raising the possibility of the bunker-busting GBU-57 bombs being deployed against Iran's main underground uranium stockpile facility in Fordo. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Mr Trump told reporters at the White House when asked if he had decided on US air strikes. His final decision will come 'within the next two weeks', he said on June 19. Professor Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East expert at the London-based Chatham House think-tank, said Mr Netanyahu had been clever in his dealings with Mr Trump, appealing to his 'vanity' with charm as well 'using his weaknesses'. Once he had received an 'amber light' in private from the US leader to launch the attacks on June 13, 'he knew Trump's personality and knew that Trump might come on board if there was a chance of claiming glory in some way or claiming some sort of credit,' he told AFP. Mr Trump has openly praised the success of the Israeli military campaign which has combined targeted assassinations of key military personnel, destruction of Iran's air defences and repeated strikes on nuclear sites. Professor Eliot A. Cohen, a veteran former US State Department advisor and international relations expert at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, cautioned against overstating Netanyahu's personal influence, however. 'I suspect this is much less about Netanyahu's influence than Trump's own view of the Iranian nuclear programme, his memory of the assassination plot against him in 2024 by Iranian agents and the success of the initial Israeli operations,' he told AFP. An Iranian man has been charged in connection with an alleged plot to kill Mr Trump before his election last November. Prof Cohen said Mr Netanyahu's lobbying could succeed for several reasons. 'They are not asking for anything other than the bombing of Fordo,' he said, referring to the deeply buried underground uranium enrichment facility. 'Nobody is talking about an invasion or anything like that.' 'Many if not most Americans understand that a nuclear Iran is particularly dangerous, and that the regime is deeply hostile to the US,' he added. A poll by the survey group YouGov for The Economist magazine conducted last weekend found half of Americans viewed Iran as an 'enemy' and another quarter said it was 'unfriendly.' But it found that only 16 per cent of Americans 'think the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran'. It found that majorities of Democrats (65 per cent), independents (61 per cent) and Republicans (53 per cent) opposed military intervention. Speaking on his War Room podcast Wednesday, former Trump strategist Bannon seethed that Mr Netanyahu had 'lectured' America and started a war he couldn't end on his own. 'Quit coming to us to finish it,' he said. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
What if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz?
What if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz? Israeli aerial bombardment has wiped out much of Iran's ballistic missile capability and decapitated its military command, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has refused to stop fighting, even promising 'irreparable damage' to the US if it intervenes in the conflict in support of its staunch ally. This has stoked speculation that Iran's leadership may reach for another way to pressure its enemies to relent – blocking or effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. This narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf handles around a quarter of the world's oil trade. So if Iran were able to deny access to the giant tankers that ferry oil and gas to China, Europe and other major energy consuming regions, it would send oil prices shooting higher and potentially destabilise the global economy. Iran has targeted merchant ships traversing the choke point in the past, and has even threatened to block the strait. The UK issued a rare warning to mariners days before Israel began bombarding Iran, saying increased tensions in the region could impact shipping, while Frontline, one of the world's largest oil-tanker operators, said it would be more cautious about offering its vessels to haul cargoes from the Persian Gulf. Where is the Strait of Hormuz? The waterway connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, with Iran to its north and the United Arab Emirates and Oman to the south. It is almost 161km long and 34km wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lanes in each direction just 3km wide. Its shallow depth makes ships potentially vulnerable to mines, and the proximity to land – Iran, in particular – leaves vessels open to attack from shore-based missiles or interception by patrol boats and helicopters. The strait is essential to the global oil trade. Tankers hauled almost 16.5 million barrels per day of crude and condensate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iran through the strait in 2024, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The strait is also crucial for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, with more than one-fifth of the world's supply – mostly from Qatar – passing through during the same period. Could Iran really block the Strait of Hormuz? Iran would have no legal authority to order a halt to traffic through Hormuz, so it would need to achieve this by force or the threat of force. If its navy tried to bar entry to the strait, it would likely be met with a strong response from the US Fifth Fleet and other Western navies patrolling the area. But it could cause severe disruption without a single Iranian warship leaving port. One option would be to harry shipping with small, fast patrol boats. Or it could launch drones and fire missiles toward ships from coastal or inland sites. That could make it too risky for commercial ships to venture through. Similar tactics have been employed successfully by the Houthi militia in Yemen to disrupt traffic through the Bab el Mandeb strait leading into the Red Sea on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Houthis have mostly fired missiles and drones at ships after warning owners of vessels linked to the US, the UK and Israel that they will be attacked if they approach the area. A US-led force in the Red Sea is seeking to protect shipping there. But the number of ships sailing through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden was still down about 70 per cent in June compared with the average level of 2022 and 2023, according to Clarkson Research Services, a unit of the world's largest shipbroker. This has forced vessel operators to reroute their traffic around the southern tip of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal – a lengthier and more expensive journey for ships traveling between Asia and Europe. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would quickly hit Iran's own economy as it would prevent it from exporting its petroleum. And it would antagonise China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and a critical partner that has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Iran from Western-led sanctions or resolutions. When has Iran disrupted shipping? Iran has used harassment of ships in the Gulf for decades to register its dissatisfaction with sanctions against it, or as leverage in disputes. In April 2024, hours before launching a drone and missile attack on Israel, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized an Israel-linked container ship near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran released the ship's crew the following month, according to trade publication Lloyd's List. Tehran claimed that the MSC Aries had violated maritime regulations, but analysts pointed to its Israeli ownership connection as a motive. When it seized a US-bound tanker in April 2023, Iran said the ship had struck another vessel. But the move appeared to be retaliation for the seizure off Malaysia's coast of a ship loaded with Iranian crude by US authorities on the grounds of sanctions violations. In May 2022, Iran seized two Greek tankers and held them for six months, presumably a response to the confiscation by Greek and US authorities of Iranian oil on a different ship. The cargo was eventually released and the Greek tankers freed. So, too, was the oil on a tanker that Iran said it impounded in January 'in retaliation for the theft of oil by the US'. Has Iran ever closed the Strait of Hormuz? Not so far. During the 1980 to 1988 war between Iraq and Iran, Iraqi forces attacked an oil export terminal at Kharg Island, northwest of the strait, in part to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would draw the US into the conflict. Afterward, in what was called the Tanker War, the two sides attacked 451 vessels between them. That significantly raised the cost of insuring tankers and helped push up oil prices. When sanctions were imposed on Iran in 2011, it threatened to close the strait, but ultimately backed off. Commodore Alireza Tangsiri, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces, said shortly before the MSC Aries seizure that Iran has the option of disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, but chooses not to. How did the US and allies respond to threats to Hormuz shipping in the past? During the Tanker War, the US Navy resorted to escorting vessels through the Gulf. In 2019, it dispatched an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the region. The same year, the US started Operation Sentinel in response to Iran's disruption of shipping. Ten other nations – including the UK, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain – later joined the operation, known now as the International Maritime Security Construct. Since late 2023, much of the focus on protecting shipping has switched away from the Strait of Hormuz and onto the southern Red Sea, the region's other vital waterway, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that connects it to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on shipping entering or exiting the Red Sea became a greater concern than the Strait of Hormuz. Who relies most on the Strait of Hormuz? Saudi Arabia exports the most oil through the Strait of Hormuz, though it can divert shipments to Europe by using a 1200km pipeline across the kingdom to a terminal on the Red Sea, allowing it to avoid both the Strait of Hormuz and the southern Red Sea. The UAE can export some of its crude without relying on the strait, by sending 1.5 million barrels a day via a pipeline from its oil fields to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman to the south of Hormuz. With its oil pipeline to the Mediterranean closed, all of Iraq's oil exports are currently shipped by sea from the port of Basra, passing through the strait, making it highly reliant on free passage. Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have no option but to ship their oil through the waterway. Most of the oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz heads to Asia. Iran also depends on transit through the Strait of Hormuz for its oil exports. It has an export terminal at Jask, at the eastern end of the strait, which was officially opened in July 2021. The facility offers Tehran a means to get a little of its oil into the world without using the waterway and its storage tanks were slowly being filled with crude late last year. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
