If the current conflict in the Gulf, characterized by disputes over control of the Strait of Hormuz, persists, the hostilities could pivot from targeting maritime oil transport to disrupting essential potable water supplies. Shortly before President Trump’s announcement on Thursday, June 11, regarding an imminent ceasefire, the United States allegedly conducted strikes on water infrastructure in southern Iran. These reported attacks targeted two reservoirs on Sirik Island, a location housing a port and Iranian naval facilities. Iranian state media asserted that these actions deprived 20,000 residents of their water supply. While the veracity of this claim is uncertain, given the propensity for misinformation from the Islamic Republic, such waterworks could be considered legitimate military targets if they were supplying Iran’s military infrastructure.
The U.S. described these as proportionate self-defense actions. Historically, Iran has also accused the U.S. of targeting its desalination plant on Qeshm Island, another frequent objective of U.S. military operations in the Gulf. Qeshm Island, beyond its historical significance, is strategically situated in the Strait of Hormuz and serves as a stronghold for the Iranian regime to control the Strait, equipped with underground missile depots and covert fast attack boats.
Vital Infrastructure Under Threat
Commencing in March, Iran initiated attacks on the water resources of neighboring Arab nations, a potentially dangerous gambit. Iran’s own water reservoirs are critically depleted, with Tehran experiencing a 75% reduction in reservoir surface area and some lakes and reservoirs shrinking by up to 90%. Arab countries opposing Iran in the current conflict are in a precarious position as well, relying on desalination for as much as 90% of their drinking water. Despite this, Iran has openly threatened to target regional desalination facilities, risking a humanitarian catastrophe.
This situation escalates beyond deterrence, venturing into the realm of mutually assured destruction and introducing a grim new dimension to the conflict. The initial stages of the war saw attacks across the Gulf aimed at demonstrating Iranian capabilities, intimidating Israel and Arab states, and striking U.S. military assets, but not a systematic demolition of Arab water infrastructure. Should Iran pursue a coordinated assault on regional desalination infrastructure, the conflict could rapidly transition from an economic strain to a humanitarian crisis and an escalating geopolitical standoff. The probability of such an outcome is disturbingly high.
Iran’s stance on striking water infrastructure has been contradictory, oscillating between claims of retaliatory action only and threats of preemptive strikes against Arab states overly aligned with the U.S. and Israel. This inconsistency may signal internal discord within the Iranian leadership. Reports emerged of President Masoud Pezeshkian allegedly submitting his resignation, citing a complete takeover by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, though he appears to remain in his post for the time being. Such conflicting statements underscore the prevailing uncertainty within Tehran’s power structures.
The energy sector has already sustained significant damage from retaliatory strikes. Following alleged Israeli bombings of Iranian energy targets in March, Iran retaliated by striking the energy infrastructure of adjacent Arab states. Iran also threatened to attack Gulf energy systems in reprisal if the U.S. targeted Iran’s electrical grid. Furthermore, Tehran has attacked energy and maritime infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline and the UAE’s port of Fujairah, both crucial for oil exports and economic stability.
Following this established pattern, further escalation could lead Iran to target nuclear power plants. A recent drone incident resulted in a fire at the UAE’s Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant.
If Iran normalizes threats against Gulf water infrastructure, other Gulf states might perceive Iran’s own reservoirs, dams, power grids, and energy facilities as potential targets in return. Consequently, the risk of escalation intensifies, with both sides shifting focus from purely military assets to vital infrastructure. While Iran’s use of infrastructure threats might enhance short-term deterrence, it significantly increases the long-term risk of wider conflict.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) considers attacks on dams akin to bombing nuclear reactors and other hazardous sites, according to Michael N. Schmitt, a senior legal scholar at the Lieber Institute at West Point. While dam attacks are permissible under customary IHL, they necessitate stringent proportionality assessments due to the potential for devastating downstream civilian harm. However, Schmitt’s analysis also outlines conditions under which the military utilization of infrastructure can negate its protected status:
The special protection against attack afforded by paragraph 1 shall cease:
- For a dam or a dyke only if it is used for purposes other than its normal function and in regular, significant, and direct support of military operations, and if such an attack is the only feasible means to terminate such support;
The Deeper Logic of Iranian Threats
Iran’s primary objective, and that of its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, has consistently been to undermine the Abraham Accords. These accords, facilitating diplomatic normalization between Israel and various Arab nations, were established to foster a pro-Western/pro-American coalition in the Middle East, diminish Iranian influence, and alter the regional power balance against Iran and its de facto allies, Russia and China.
The impending diplomatic normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia served as the catalyst for Hamas’s extensive attack on civilian populations on October 7th. The underlying strategy was that any conflict initiated by Israel would inflame popular anti-Israeli sentiment across the Arab and Muslim world, thereby derailing the Abraham Accords as Arab governments, fearing public backlash, would withdraw their support. Iran is now advancing its anti-Israel and anti-U.S. agenda by targeting the oil and gas infrastructure, petrochemical plants, ports, and airports of neighboring Arab countries.
These attacks, coupled with attempts to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, grant Iran a degree of military, diplomatic, and economic leverage over Arab partners of the U.S. and Israel. However, assaults on Gulf water desalination infrastructure could ultimately compel Arab nations to demand decisive action from Washington and its nuclear-capable allies, such as Pakistan, including the most stringent measures against their aggressive neighbor, potentially even advocating for regime change.
Water is an indispensable resource, more valuable than oil. Nations that reside in vulnerable positions should refrain from escalating conflicts by targeting critical water infrastructure.
Business Style Takeaway: The escalating conflict in the Gulf region introduces significant risks to critical water infrastructure, posing a dual threat of humanitarian crisis and geopolitical instability. Businesses operating in or reliant on this region must brace for potential disruptions beyond oil and gas, incorporating water security into their risk assessments and contingency planning.
Based on materials from : www.forbes.com