Water Weaponization: A Tool for Maintaining Geopolitical Superiority in the Middle East
- Jun 12
- 4 min read
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Andiana Foundation.
Introduction
The open conflicts of late throughout the Middle East have re-shaped the narrative around the issue of water governance in the region. The weaponization of water resources is too often overlooked. The current US-Israel vs. Iran war demands reconsideration of the issue. Iran’s attacks on hydro-infrastructures in targeted Gulf states tactically reveal Tehran’s understanding of water in conflict. Strategically, it suggests realist approach towards national interests, given that these attacks are to the detriment of otherwise pacific and beneficial relations with neighbors across the Persian Gulf. This conflict will not be fully resolved without the agreed-to exclusion of water supply as a legal target.
Weaponizing Water
Water is perhaps the most fundamental resource for humankind’s survivability. But aside from the fulfillment of this basic function, water has been used throughout history as a tool for strategic supremacy.
Examples of water’s role in conflict outcomes date to the Classical Era. Under General Hermocrates, Syracuse won the battle against the Athenians by corralling them in humid, malaria-ridden swamp wetlands, asymmetrically undermining their battle readiness. It wasn’t long after that the Romans understood water’s significance during the Punic Wars by salting Carthaginian wells.
The weaponization of water continued through the Middle Ages. Yazid I’s defeat of Husayn Ibn Ali forces by blockading the Euphrates River provides a view as to how, in 680 BCE, water was used defensively. During the European Renaissance, authorities under the counsel of Lionardo da Vinci siphoned off the flow of the Arno River from Pisa during a city-state war between the former and Florence.
The modern era brought about new tactics in water weaponization. During World War II, German army reportedly released the flow of the Edersee dam’s water to block Allied Forces from advancing on their forces. With the length of 1,312 feet and height of 157 feet, the Edersee that flows through the North Rhine-Westphalia boasted the third largest dam in Germany built during World War I. On the other side of the coin, British forces released Germany’s Ruhr dams as means of warfare that resulted in the death of 1,300. On other occasion, Sadam Hussein targeted water desalination infrastructures trepanning the lives of millions of Kuwaitis during its war with that country in 1991. In the recent devastating confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, Russia has targeted critical water infrastructures including the Kahhovka Hydropower Dam, resulting in the death of at least 30 people and displacing at least 4,000 communities.
The 21st Century has witnessed further developments. To contextualize, roughly 105 water weaponizations have been detected and documented by the Water Conflict Database of the Pacific Institute. Its findings stress the overarching dynamics of water conflict transformation across the globe. Indeed, the recent US-Israel confrontation against Iran has amplified the complexity of these multi-layered conflictive dynamics. This complexity results in a broader conventional debate around water conflict.
The targeting of water resources during armed conflict represents a naked adherence to a realist approach in international relations. Accordingly, Iran’s recent missile and drone strikes against Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states reflect Tehran’s primacy of its national interests over international norms and laws, as well as the benefits of friendly relations with GCC.
The GCC population of 60+ millions rely on seawater desalination given the scarcity of freshwater resources in the region. Accordingly, Iran’s attacks are existential. Given the scarcity of freshwater availability along with the adverse effects of climate changes on water resources in the Middle East, the deliberate strikes on water treatment plants have been termed by some as a threat comparable to nuclear warfare.
Iran’s attacks on GCC water facilities were designed to pressure those states to mediate the conflict’s resolution. Tehran’s position has been weakened. Considering the fragility of Iran’s sanction-burdened economy, damaging water infrastructures in these states widens the battlefield across the Middle East. If GCC states are to respond effectively, they must develop an offensive posture—under a coordinated coalition—to cripple Iran’s aggressions. As for the other parties to the conflict, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Agachi stated that Iran’s critical water desalination plants were also targeted by the U.S. and Israel. On March 7, US and Israel attacks on the freshwater desalination facility on Qeshm Island signalized a shift in state-to-state confrontation by potentially triggering environmental crises throughout the region. In sum, GCC countries can activate their Emergency Management Center, which regularly monitors the water infrastructures vulnerable to attack. The Center can further coordinates damage assessments among the General Secretariat of the GCC countries. With the investment of over $ 53 billion on desalination facilities in the region, GCC states would benefit from working through international institutions such as the UN prevent Iran from aggressive missile and drone attacks on critical hydro- infrastructures. Furthermore, working together as a community to raise global awareness of the immorality and illegality of this targeting as per the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, GCC states stand to bring the discussion of water weaponization and its harm to the fore. Doing so would benefit not only their citizens but mankind as a whole. Attacks on water infrastructure almost invariably harms the civilization population in its proximity. The time has come to stop.
The author of this blog confirms that neither the contents of the blog nor the grammar and editorial revision of the blog were produced by any artificial intelligence chatbot.
Najibullah Loodin is a Non-resident Policy Fellow at the Andiana Foundation. He holds a PhD degree in Water Management and Hydrological Science from College of Arts andSciences at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. For the PhD dissertation, Mr. Loodin navigated the role of emotions and trust in decision-making processes over the use and allocation of the shared watercourse among riparians with a comparative study of the Helmand River (shared between Afghanistan and Iran) and the Rio Grande River (shared between US and Mexico). Prior to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, Najib Loodin served as lecturer and researcher to the Research Center, Ghalib University, navigating indigenous water management approaches with special focus on the Middle East. To date, Mr. Loodin has published eighteen peer-reviewed articles spanning from transboundary water governance and management to urban water and urban informal settlements.
Comments