Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (Image: Abedin Taherkenreh/EPA-EFE/REX)
A military attack on Iran’s nuclear sites could trigger a regional radiological disaster that would pollute the Persian Gulf, putting millions of lives at risk, a leading analyst has claimed. The warning comes amid growing political pressure in Washington and escalating rhetoric from US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly raised the possibility of using force if Iran refuses to curb its nuclear program.
Mr Trump has previously talked about taking out “nuclear dust” from Iran and suggested that the operation could be carried out, in his words, “with the cooperation of the regime”. US officials have also publicly floated more extreme options, including attacking Iran and seizing nuclear material by force if Tehran refuses to comply.
Read more: Iran gives Trump scary WW3 threat – ‘An eye for an eye’
Read more: Trump will ‘review Britain’s claim on the Falklands’ as punishment for bombing Iran.
Nuclear facilities in Iran (Image: Anadolu via Getty Images)
However, nuclear policy expert Paul Ingram said that the consequences of any attack on nuclear infrastructure would extend far beyond military objectives and could rapidly escalate into environmental catastrophe.
Mr Ingram said: “This is a serious threat, and the belligerents have shown a remarkable disregard for the risks.”
Mr Ingram warned that even limited attacks could have consequences that would be difficult to stop. He said: “A radiological leak from an attack could have a serious impact on the disrupted waters of the Persian Gulf and the water supply for millions of people, and the risk of atmospheric emissions could threaten regional populations.”
The geography of the Persian Gulf increases the danger. As a semi-enclosed water body bordering Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, its water exchange with the open ocean is limited. If radioactive material enters the marine environment this makes it particularly vulnerable to long-term pollution.
Recent attacks on Iranian nuclear-related infrastructure have raised concerns that escalation is no longer theoretical. Mr Ingram noted “US/Israeli attacks on the Bushehr complex in recent weeks”, warning that such actions demonstrate how quickly nuclear risks can become intertwined with military planning.
US President Donald Trump (Image: Getty)
The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Iran’s only operational civilian reactor, is located directly on the Gulf coast. Any serious damage to its core systems or fuel management infrastructure could significantly increase the risk of radioactive leakage into surrounding waters.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi warned earlier this week that instability around nuclear infrastructure was pushing the global nonproliferation system toward a dangerous breaking point.
Mr Grossi told The Daily Telegraph: “There are some important countries … where there is public discussion about this possibility,” referring to the renewed debate in several states about acquiring nuclear weapons.
He warned that such developments could undermine the entire global framework designed to stop the spread. Mr Grossi said: “There is discussion about ‘friendly proliferation’. These are all things that fill me with concern because I believe a world with 20 or more nuclear weapon states would be extremely dangerous.”
Mr Grossi also warned of systemic weakness. Mr. Grossi said, “At some point, we will see cracks in the system. And then we will have a domino (effect). It’s a very delicate situation.”
Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (Image: Getty)
The warnings come as diplomacy remains volatile over Iran’s nuclear program. Mr Grossi stressed that any agreement would be meaningless without verification. Mr Grossi said: “Without verification, no agreement is an agreement at all. It’s the illusion of an agreement, or it’s a promise that you don’t know whether it will be followed.”
He said the IAEA would be the only body capable of providing credible oversight. Mr Grossi said: “We are the only ones who can guarantee complete impartiality in the work.”
But Mr Ingram argued that verification debates risk missing a bigger threat: military escalation could materially overwhelm any diplomatic framework.
Mr Ingram said: “This is a serious threat,” warning that repeated attacks on nuclear infrastructure show how little importance is being given to downstream consequences.
The strategic stakes are rising as Washington signals it is willing to consider alternatives to coercion. Mr Trump has repeatedly described Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and suggested force may ultimately be needed to stop the weaponisation.
Iranian state TV broadcasts video of ships seized by Iran’s navy
However, Mr Ingram said the assumption that nuclear risk could be eliminated by military action was dangerously simplistic.
He pointed to Iran’s broader strategic behavior, arguing that it has repeatedly shown that it can withstand pressure from much more powerful adversaries without breaking. But he warned that nuclear facilities are uniquely vulnerable compared to conventional military targets.
The risk is not only deliberate escalation, he said, but also miscalculation – where attacks are not intended to reduce capacity, but rather trigger systemic environmental failure.
Mr Grossi also warned that conflict situations complicate nuclear safety inspections. He said the damaged facilities present “structural stability” issues and require careful handling even after hostilities end.
Mr. Ingram echoed those concerns, arguing that nuclear infrastructure is not as resilient as military planners often assume. Once compromised, he said, the systems involved could produce cascading effects that span borders and regions.
The Persian Gulf is particularly exposed. It is one of the world’s most important energy corridors and also an important source of desalinated water for the Gulf countries. Therefore, any contamination event can become a simultaneous environmental, humanitarian and economic crisis.
Mr Ingram warned that the notion of manageable growth had become increasingly outdated. Military superiority does not eliminate physical vulnerabilities in complex nuclear systems, he said.
They also cautioned that repeated attacks risk normalizing a pattern in which nuclear infrastructure becomes the routine target of war, increasing the likelihood of a major accident over time.
Mr. Grossi’s broader warning reflects the same underlying concern: As geopolitical tensions rise, the global nuclear order is becoming less stable.
Mr Grossi said: “A world with fewer nuclear weapons is better than a world with more nuclear weapons,” stressing that current trends are moving in the opposite direction.
For Mr. Ingram, the immediate threat is not abstract geopolitics but physical risk. He warned that attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in or near the Persian Gulf would not be limited to military objectives.
Instead it could create what he described as a slow-moving but far-reaching environmental disaster – one that would span borders, economies and generations.
