War with Iran

The Buildup to a US-Iran War

I found this article mildly surprising, but the implications of another war with Iran are incalculable. I found the most surprising passage from this article to be:

The final factor moving us closer to war with Iran is the fact that we are already fighting a proxy war with Iran inside Iraq. The most under-appreciated passage from General Petraeus's congressional testimony was his description of the role of Iran:

In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps' Qods Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran, and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the International Zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.

To pursue this proxy war, the US is arresting Iranian operatives and building outposts on the Iranian border for the purpose of interdicting weapons smuggled to Iran's agents in Iraq.

This doesn't exactly pertain to the current environment, but it begs to question what would happen, at an environmental level, to the area if it was burdened with another war? 

My apologies, as this posting is going to address last week's country, as well as this week's. I am fighting off a sickness that the more paranoid part of my psyche is almost entirely convinced is the Swine Flu.

Afghanistan

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/december01_index.php?l=7

This link gives a brief summary of all of the environmental challenges facing Afghanistan today, and reveals that essentially the bulk of the environmental damage the land of Afghanistan has occured within the last two decades. Besides opium production, which has been going on for centuries, the majority of Afghanistan's problems, including chemical weapon production, land mines, and a decline in the amount of land used for agriculture. The wars that have wracked Afghanistan have been severely detrimental to their Eco System, and this is particularly poingnant because the conflicts in Afghanistan have been almost entirely no fault of their own. First idependence from the Soviet Union, next the American invasion into Afghanistan. The challenges they face have been caused by outside influences, and now they need the resources to fix them. To whom does that responsibility fall?

Iran

http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/iran/iran_environment.html

This article refers America's collaboration with Iran on issues involving the environment, particularly the ones that effect Iran the most, including air pollution and deforestation. It discusses past collaboration efforts between the two countries. Again, like Saudi Arabia, where the United States cannot work together on one arena, such as at the political level, they can find common ground on another level, like the environment.

Iran, with more than 65 million people, is one of the driest countries in the world. Urbanization, industrialization, and agriculture have increased demand for water while sapping the county’s scant supplies. Only 10 percent of the country receives adequate rainfall for agriculture. Water scarcity is a national concern and creates pressure to construct large infrastructural projects to transport water to drier parts of the country. A water tunnel has recently finished construction linking the Dez River and the central desert province Qom. Called the largest water tunnel in the Middle East, the project took five years to complete. At 27.3 miles long, the tunnel will move 120 million cubic meters of water each year.
Much of Iran's water is stored underground. Iranians centuries ago developed man-made underground water channels called qanats which are used more than wells to access those supplies. A qanat taps water that has seeped into the ground and channels it via straight tunnels to the land surface. Flood control and management of water resources have made dams popular projects in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The 42 dams are used for irrigation, flood management, hydropower, and in some cases drinking water. In numerous localities, there may be no precipitation until sudden storms, accompanied by heavy rains, dump almost the entire year's rainfall in a few days. Often causing floods and local damage, the runoffs are so rapid that they cannot be used for agricultural purposes. The dangerous relationship with water supplies in Iran poses many challenges for the future. Sudden innundation following drought make agriculture and safe water more unreliable and difficult.

When Development is a Step Backward

The following is a link to an article entitled Iran: Environment Takes a Back Seat to Development Plans from an online news analysis site:

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1078370.html

The author, Vahid Sepehri, uses the example of the Kavir National Park in north-central Iran to illustrate how development in the interest of oil and an industrial economy is endangering safe spaces and the environment they protect. Kavir is home to several rare native and endangered species including the Persian leopard and the Asiatic cheetah. The area was declared a national park and biosphere reserve in 1976 by the Iranian monarchy.

Since then, however, two oil projects have been pushing for expansion, which would entail blasting, digging wells, and the building of pipelines and saltwater canals underground through the Kavir. As of now, construction is awaiting approval, but the threat still looms.

These actions would threaten the park not only in disturbance, but it would also ruin the soil and thus vegetation because “the injection of 4 billion cubic meters of gas under the national park would force large amounts of saltwater to the surface.” In an area that is already arid, this is extremely dangerous.

Kavir National Park is only a case study in the many hazards posed to the environment in Iran. It has been noted that the environment has already experienced degradation for military development. Several dams, chemical plants, and refineries have already been constructed, all of which “might generate jobs and money for some, but it would destroy the local environment and lead to long-term and more generalized poverty and sickness for locals.” This quote by Etemad-i Melli points to the human factor that is connected to environmental degradation. There has been a rise in birth defects in Iran, which have been traced to pollution from oil and production effluent into the Persian Gulf.

Once again, all of these negative environmental impacts are a result of so-called development. This may be an assumption, but I feel that it is a commonly held opinion in our class that military expansion is not necessarily progress. At what point does the security of a country overrule food security for its people? So often, the military and production of oil are used to protect a nation’s geographical and economic place, but if the actual land and resources are destroyed through environmental degradation, doesn’t this seem counter intuitive?

Approximately 4,000-5,000 Tehran residents are estimated to die every year from air pollution

I found this article about environmental issues in Iran and there are plenty to go around with!
I was just astounded by some claims that around 5,000 people in Tehran alone die from air pollution.

One can clearly see that the problems of a relatively successfully developing country are depicted in Iran as well. High levels of pollution, huge increases in population, higher energy consumption and the increase in CO2 emissions. Between 1980 and 2000, the CO2 emissions doubled from 30 million metric tons of carbon to over 80 million and, according to Wikipedia, in 2004 the levels are around 433 million, which is 5 times more than in 2000, and 14 times more than 1980. I just find those number to be very impressive!


Oh, and I found an interesting video about the largest and most important river of Iran and the pollution. It is clearly very biased, claiming that the Iranian government is not doing anything to prevent the pollution because there is a large number of Arabs living in that area, which is bordering Iraq.
I just found it interesting to see how people would assume such things (which might or might not be true) and actually see the pollution on video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3ix4_NsqI8

Gulf War Oil Spill Pictures

The deliberate oil spill of 1991 in the Persian Gulf negatively impacted those waters, as well as the coastal ecosystems of Iran, destroying wildlife and plant habitat, as well as contaminating the water source. 

Here are some photos of the largest oil spill ever (1,450,000), some of them are better than others: 

i got these from this website: http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Class/EffectsandFates/Module7/Module7.htm, which also has photos from other big oil spills. some of these photos are closer up and show how the oil in the water looks and bubbles up and just sits on top of the water. it's disgusting, and it makes me think of Free Willy 2 when Willy is dying because an oil spill and they just can scrape the oil of of him. That wasn't even real and its horrifying. This oil spill was HUGE, real, and intentional. I think that the environmental impacts of our actions are disregarded in much of our development as nations, but especially in war.

Potential impacts of an Israeli attack on Iran

Times Article

While this does not directly address the environment and how it may be impacted by an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I do not know the details of nuclear radiation, nuclear power, and precision airstrikes but it seems as though this could create some major problems. Would there be a more serious explosion if a location with nuclear research going on? It seems as though this could be dangerous because of the unknown potential affects of this action, and any possible reprisals by the Iranians or other Islamic countries of the area.


And while it does not really apply to this week's topic this blog is quite interesting

Iran-Iraq War & Waterway Claims

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/iraniraq.htm

This article talks about the role that the Shatt-al-Arab waterway played in the Iraq/Iran war. Since an ambiguous "The Peace Treaty of 1639" between the Persians and the Ottoman empire, this waterway has been disputed. Although we often think of the Iran/Iraq war as war about religion, this article talks about the main role that the waterway played in its initiation and both countries perseverance.

The article also talks about how although their was a lot of potential for the environmental damage during the Iran/Iraq war, relatively little actually occured (compared to the potential).

So I guess ultimately this post isn't about the environemnal impacts of war, but rather the environmental causes.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/iraniraq.htm

Health Hazards 9/11

Ground Zero Hazards

Environmental impact of 9/11 worse than feared

The articles that I found talk a lot about the health effects associated with the 9/11 attacks. The video does not talk much about what the health effects were, but it does show how many sources said that the area was perfectly safe.

Given our reading centered around Al qaeda I thought that it would be interesting to link our topic back to the U.S. directly. I think that it is important to realize how the issues we are discussing (such as terrorism) can directly influence

our lives here in the U.S.

link

Here's the link (I finally got it to work)

http://www.afghan-web.com/geography/environment.html

Waging War on the Environment in Afghanistan

For some reason right now, I am unable to post links here, but I found an article called, “The Condition of Afghanistan’s Environment” by Daud Saba and Mardom Nama-e Bakhter through google.

It is quite old (from 1997) but I thought it would be interesting to see what the status was during the active rule of the Taliban compared to the current status of the environment in Afghanistan today.

As others have noted in their posts, the article mentions the loss of forested area as a huge problem in the already very arid country. Much of this problem is due to deforestation, but a significant amount has also by burned or destroyed by war technology in chemicals. These chemical weapons, which Afghanistan used in the war against the Soviet Union, contributed smog and pollution to the air. As a result, these are obviously direct environmental consequences from war, as opposed to what we have seen in other countries we have studied where much of the degradation is linked indirectly to war through oil.

The article talks about how even worse than the decreasing amount of forests as well as farming land is the terrifying environmental and human danger of land mines, which are planted for war purposes. As of 1997, there were more than 10 million land mines in Afghanistan. (WHAT!?)

We must ask, at what point does environmental degradation become a government’s weapon against its own people. The state of the environment in Afghanistan desperately needs to be addressed, but are there motives for those who hold power to prevent reform?

Drought in Afghanistan

Drought and conflict have been devastating for Afghanistan’s drinking water. Access to safe water has been limited even before US-led bombing commenced in October 2001. The lack of safe drinking water also makes diarrhea and dysentery more of a threat. Disease outbreaks were not met with the traditional means of community education on hygiene and communication campaigns since the Taliban dismantled those women-led structures. By the time the campaign on Afghanistan was underway in 2001, the country had been experiencing its worst drought in 30 years. Well drilling and water delivery have been undertaken by foreign NGOs to help make safe water available. The areas of Maywand and Khakrez have particularly been impacted by these problems. They traditionally rely on water from underground water sources or shallow water wells, but these sources have been damaged and truncated. Irrigation for food production has also been more difficult to obtain and as a result food production has suffered. Severe food shortages now face the country and Oxfam says 5 million could experience extreme food shortages and possible starvation. Delivery of aid and water relief has been complicated as infrastructure and supply routes are under continued attack. While the focus on Afghanistan policy has been on the insurgency and political security, food security has been getting little attention. A humanitarian crisis looms for Afganistan. Can the US escalate its battle against continued suffering and public health crises in Afghanistan? Will the focus on the troubles of Afghanistan incorporate the pressing need for action to remove the circumstances that make starvation and disease too real of a threat for millions in Afghanistan?

Deforestation, endangered species, land mines

sorry, i'm a little late with this...

This article talks about the effects of years and years of war in Afghanistan, especially the civil war. It touches on a few things already mentioned by Slavi and Evelyn, in regards to deforestation and land mines, but offers some other facts as well.

here is the link: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2002/03/afghanistans-environmental-casualties

their natural resources are depleting as a result of being over used to make war weapons, but also in order to survive financially in war times. one resource especially over used has been the forests. the lumber industry has been one of few money-making industries because wood is need to create and fuel the building of war infrastructure. much of this wood is smuggled out of the country by a timber mafia. the lack of trees leaves the earth exposed, and as the top soil erodes, the land is made unusable for agriculture.

a lot of this land is filled with left over land mines from the civil war, an estimated 10 million! that kill or injure 3 people per day!

a drought has caused even more fighting over water access of rivers and canals. also, the animal biodiversity of Afghanistan is suffering signifcantly. There are lots of problems with poaching and hunting endangered species for food and profit on the black market.

the devastation that Afghanistan has sufferd because of conflict and war is unbelievable, and there is no sign of things turning around. the land, air, and water is constantly degrading and becoming unusable, and creating an unlivable environment for humans to live.

Virtually no forests!

I was truly amazed to find out that Afghanistan has practically no forests, what so ever. Afghanistan had, apparently, only 3% of its territory covered with forests in 1980, which has dropped to less than 0,5% by now. That is a very serious side-effect of the wars, but then again one could argue that they barely had any forests in the first place. Nevertheless, there are entire regions where forest-wood is used as firewood for heating and cooking, so it is a necessity. It seems as if it is a big problem, but one never really hears about that. The soil is as well very much affected by trees, so I would assume that the soil from the deforested areas is getting worse every year. According to the CIA Factbook soil degradation is a big problem in Afghanistan, with deforestation for fuel and building materials…

Here are the links of the sources:
http://www.lenntech.com/environmental-effects-war.htm#Asia
http://www.igreens.org.uk/afghanistans_forests.htm

Landmines In Afhgnistan Threaten the Environment

This article is about the impact of land mines on the environment and the people of Afghanistan. According to this article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL43003

"Up to a 150,000 people have been killed or wounded by landmines or explosive remnants since 1989. On average, 45 to 50 people are killed or wounded by landmines in Afghanistan every month, compared to 150, three years ago."

This definitely shows the connection between human needs and the environment. Not only are the land mines bad for the people, they are also devastating for the environment, which (as we can see in all the other articles) is already suffering.

This link gives a more in depth account of the environmental impacts of land mines in globally (such as how they pollute water and the soil).

Here is a Link to an article about the impacts of the decades long wars that have devastated Afghanistan. Like most places that have undergone war for such a lengthy time period, the countryside here has been severely degraded. The article has one particularly striking image on the right hand side showing a boy walking through the disgustingly dirty and polluted river. Just as in Iraq there are problems with people stealing, smuggling and taking advantage of the unlawfulness.

It is reasonable to expect some sort of environmental protection during times of war? Would there be a difference between a war in or between developing countries and one with more developed countries where environmental protection may be a bigger issue and priority?

Shock and Awe

‘Modern warfare damages ecosystems’

Modern Warfare Causes Unprecedented environmental Damage

These articles talk about some of the environmental impacts of using shock and awe tactics like the U.S. has in Iraq. Not only do they appear to be not very effective, but the consequences of blanketing an area with potent munitions appear quite large. 

Shock & Awe

Article

This article goes over some of the ways the U.S. could halved helped the environment in preventing global warming if it invested as much in the environment as it did in war.

US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.

2. 141 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) emissions since March 2003 and still counting…
• CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year. These stem from fuel-intensive combat, oil well fires and
increased gas flaring, the boom in cement consumption due to reconstruction efforts and security needs, and heavy use of explosives and chemicals that contribute to global warming.
• If the war was ranked as a country in terms of emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do annually. Falling between New Zealand and Cuba, the war each year emits more than 60% of all countries.
• Emissions from the Iraq War to date are nearly two and a half times greater than what would be avoided between 2009 and 2016 were California to implement the auto emission regulations it has proposed, but that the Bush Administration has struck down.

I thought that this was pretty interesting. I had never stopped to think about how else the U.S. could have been spending money and the affects that it could have on the rest of the world.

Environmental Issues linked to Health Issues

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/84318_10084318.html

The environmental implications in any country usually play second fiddle to the human consequences. The environment, generally, is only important in so far as it affects human beings. So while it is all well and good to worry about the impact of war on the landscape, what it ultimately boils down to is the people. The article discusses various health problems US army service women have experienced since being on tours of duty in Iraq. The health issues include hair loss, fatigue and fever. While the symptoms could be attributed to extreme stress, as war understandably puts its combatats under emotional duress, the sheer number of US airwomen suffering from similar symptoms begs the question, does environment have something to do with it? The study does not explore the illness, which it dubs "Gulf War Syndrome" after the illness that struck many troops during the 1991 Gulf War,any further, and it would be interesting to know whether or not the syndrome affects women living in the area, or foreign aid workers, if the women living in the area have built up an immunity to whatever viral strain is causing the syndrome. The only reason to not attribute it to war stress is that thus far the syndrome has not affected male air troops.

I know we are discussing the environmental impacts, but because the environment is so obviously inextricably linked to the people, it is interesting to see what impacts the war has on people via the environment.

Destroying the Garden of Eden

The following is a link to a video report on the environment in Iraq from the United Nations Environmental Programme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASfxGC7ZO0

The video explains how in 1991, after the United States withdrew forces from Iraq, the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq were forced to continue the fight against Saddam Hussein on their own. In order to demolish these forces and their resources, Hussein damned and drained the marshes in the South, which were once called “the Garden of Eden” and as a result, driving the Marsh Arabs into internal exile. After the second U.S. invasion in Iraq and once Sadddam Hussein’s regime fell, the southern Iraqis immediately destroyed the dams and returned the marshes to these areas. Unfortunately, the water has been greatly affected. For example, Stalinization levels have changed and now, the water is not safe to drink directly from its source. In response, six water treatment plants have been implemented to purify the water—the water is once again available and useable, but it took great pains and pricy reforms to bring the marshes back.

I found this video interesting because it specifically focuses on war tactics that actually exploit environmental degradation, as opposed to simply the negative impacts that the environment experiences due to warfare. This environmental warfare appears much more intentional and deliberate, but I am forced to question, if you can in fact compare the two, whether it is worse than the United State’s influence on the Iraqi environment. American forces are not actively destroying river systems to devastate Iraqi livelihoods, but they are, nevertheless, waging a war that still has its own environmental consequences. The United States is also extremely invested in the production of oil, which is a large factor in environmental degradation. Can exploitation of a land and its resources for the United State’s own interests be compared to deliberate environmental warfare?