Reports of airstrikes targeting water desalination facilities in Iran, Bahrain, and Kuwait have heightened concerns over a dangerous escalation in an already volatile conflict. In one of the world’s most water-scarce regions, such attacks threaten a resource essential to civilian survival, raising fears of severe humanitarian consequences and the opening of a far more perilous phase of the war.
Although the U.S. military has denied involvement, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, described the reported strike on a desalination plant on Qeshm Island as “a dangerous move with grave consequences,” accusing Washington of setting a troubling precedent. Shortly thereafter, Bahraini authorities alleged that an Iranian drone caused material damage to a desalination facility, though they emphasized that water supplies and network capacity remained unaffected.
Iranian officials maintain that their actions in the Gulf are retaliatory, aimed primarily at American military targets rather than civilians. However, the Islamic Republic has been targeting civilian and strategic economic targets across the GCC countries as well. New Front in the Conflict Water infrastructure in the region has long been vulnerable to sabotage or attack, but recent developments have intensified concerns that the Iran war could disrupt water systems sustaining tens of millions of people. According to Adam Weinstein deputy director of the Middle East program of the Quincy Institute, the longer the conflict persists, the more likely civilian infrastructure will be drawn into the targeting calculus. This risk is compounded by structural pressures: the World Resources Institute estimates that roughly 83 percent of the Middle East’s population already faces severe renewable water scarcity—a figure projected to approach near-universal levels by 2050 as climate change intensifies.
Intelligence agencies are closely monitoring any strikes on water infrastructure as a potential indicator of escalation to a significantly more dangerous phase, notes Lewis Sage-Passant of Encyclopedia Geopolitica, Although attacks on energy systems are economically and environmentally damaging, strikes on water infrastructure are existential in nature and could trigger immediate retaliation. Such facilities are typically well-defended, Sage-Passant says, but prolonged conflict risks “depleting interceptor missile stocks and exhausting air defense systems, increasing the likelihood of successful strikes.”
Attacks on critical water infrastructure also undermine arguments about restraint. “Israel has routinely used water as a weapon of war to tragic effects in Gaza and beyond,” argues Hussein A. Amery a professor of water politics and policy at Colorado School of Mines. Iran’s targeting of desalination plants—systems that sustain entire populations—similarly risk causing indiscriminate harm. The Gulf’s Dangerous Dependence on Desalination Across the Gulf Cooperation Council states, approximately 439 desalination plants collectively produce around 5.75 billion cubic meters of water annually. This infrastructure underpins both daily life and economic activity.
Major urban centers such as Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Doha, Kuwait City, and Jeddah depend almost entirely on desalinated water. Nearly 99 percent of drinking water in Qatar and over 90 percent in Bahrain comes from such facilities. Comparable figures include about 90 percent in Kuwait, 86 percent in Oman, 70 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 42 percent in the United Arab Emirates.
While some states—notably the UAE and Saudi Arabia—have expanded water storage capacity, smaller countries such as Qatar and Bahrain could exhaust reserves within days if desalination operations were disrupted. Given the water-intensive nature of regional economies, particularly in petrochemicals and during peak seasonal demand, any prolonged disruption would have far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences.
Water security concerns in Saudi Arabia have led the government to treat groundwater as a strategic resource and end subsidies for water-intensive crops such as wheat and fodder. Although underground aquifers were once seen as less vulnerable than coastal infrastructure, years of overuse and poor management have severely depleted them. In 2019, it was estimated that nearly four-fifths of Saudi Arabia’s fossil groundwater reserves had already been exhausted.
Although the Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture has taken measures to stabilize—and in some areas even restore—groundwater levels in Saudi Arabia, the kingdom and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council still face “ absolute water scarcity ” even as they develop plans for more sustainable water management.
In a severe crisis, emergency water imports could cover only minimal needs and would likely be insufficient for the wider population. Large-scale imports would also be extremely costly and difficult, requiring specialized tankers and infrastructure to unload and distribute the water.
Iran, for its part, is grappling with one of its most severe water crises in decades, driven by climate change , mismanagement, groundwater over-extraction, and flawed agricultural policies. However, desalination accounts for only a small share—around 3 percent—of its drinking water supply. Most facilities are concentrated along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, meaning that attacks on these facilities would have significant impact on coastal populations but not for the nation as a whole.
Throughout the Gulf, Hussein Amery argues, the destruction or disabling of major desalination plants would carry catastrophic humanitarian and political implications. Alternative sources such as reservoirs or aquifers cannot fully replace the volume or quality of desalinated water, and sustained shortages could quickly fuel social unrest. Legal Violations and Escalation Risks From a legal perspective, targeting water infrastructure constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law. Under Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 54, paragraph 2, attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival—including drinking water installations—are explicitly prohibited. Yet recent conflicts suggest that such norms are increasingly disregarded.
This pattern is particularly evident in Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which led to widespread allegations of genocide, where civilian infrastructure has repeatedly been damaged or destroyed. According to Hussein Amery, the war against Iran is no less illegal than the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Israeli occupation of Arab territories. In his view, the world is moving toward a state of lawlessness “where, as an Athenian once said, the strong do what they wish, and the weak suffer as they must.” He further contends that the conflict mirrors other contested interventions, reinforcing a trend toward geopolitical lawlessness.
Whatever restraint that remains may erode further in the event of an escalation in the current war with Iran, especially if critical civilian infrastructure—including water—becomes a primary target in efforts to weaken adversaries. Moreover, U.S. policymakers failed to adequately consider the long-term economic, infrastructural, and political consequences of the war, repeatedly ignoring warnings from Arab Gulf states and Turkey about the potentially devastating regional impact of a conflict with Iran. Donald Trump’s reported surprise at Iran’s targeting of the Gulf states is just one example of this lack of strategic foresight at the highest levels.
Without a shift toward diplomacy, the trajectory of the conflict points toward escalating humanitarian, economic, and environmental costs. In such a situation, there are no true winners.
The post Water Under Fire appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus .