Systemic risks of nuclear militarisation in the Gulf: How geopolitical brinkmanship threatens regional stability and ecological security

Gulf indigenous communities, particularly in Bushehr Province and Bahrain, have long warned about the ecological and health risks of nuclear infrastructure, citing traditional knowledge of coastal ecosystems and intergenerational oral histories of environmental degradation. Their perspectives are systematically excluded from policy debates, which prioritise state security narratives over community-based risk assessments. Indigenous activists in Bahrain, for example, have linked nuclear threats to broader patterns of environmental racism, where marginalised populations bear the brunt of industrial and military risks.

The Bushehr plant sits on a historical fault line of geopolitical conflict, from the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran to the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, where both sides targeted each other's energy infrastructure. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster demonstrated how radiological contamination transcends borders, yet this lesson has been ignored in the Gulf, where nuclear safety standards remain inconsistent. Historical precedents like the 1991 Gulf War's oil fires and the 2011 Fukushima disaster reveal a pattern of underestimating long-term ecological and health impacts in favour of short-term strategic gains.

In Japan, the hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors) have long framed nuclear risks as a universal human concern, contrasting with the Gulf's state-centric security narratives. South Korean activists, drawing on their own experiences with North Korean nuclear threats, have criticised the militarisation of civilian nuclear programmes as a false solution to energy insecurity. Meanwhile, in India and Pakistan, where nuclear brinkmanship has become routine, civil society groups have highlighted how nuclear discourse often erases the lived experiences of those living in 'nuclearised' landscapes, where fear and resilience coexist.

Scientific consensus warns that an attack on Bushehr could release radioactive iodine-131 and caesium-137, with contamination spreading via the Persian Gulf's currents and prevailing winds, affecting populations in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Studies on Chernobyl and Fukushima show that radiological risks are not confined to immediate blast zones but can persist for decades, with long-term health impacts including cancer and genetic mutations. The IAEA's safety standards, however, are non-binding in conflict zones, and there is no international mechanism to enforce nuclear safety during military operations.

Artists in the Gulf have used poetry, music, and visual art to express the existential dread of nuclear annihilation, framing it as a spiritual crisis that transcends geopolitical boundaries. Iranian filmmakers like Abbas Kiarostami have explored the psychological toll of living under the shadow of nuclear threats, while Bahraini poets like Ali Al-Jallawi have linked environmental destruction to broader themes of loss and displacement. These artistic expressions often critique the dehumanising logic of nuclear deterrence, which reduces life to a bargaining chip in geopolitical games.

Scenario modelling by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock suggests that a Gulf nuclear crisis could escalate into a regional conflict involving Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran, with potential for global economic disruption due to oil supply shocks. Future projections indicate that radiological contamination could render parts of the Gulf uninhabitable for centuries, displacing millions and triggering mass migration. Alternative futures, however, include de-escalation through regional treaties, the phasing out of civilian nuclear programmes in favour of renewable energy, and the establishment of a Gulf-wide nuclear safety regime.

Marginalised voices in the Gulf—including women activists in Iran, Shia communities in Bahrain, and Bedouin tribes in Saudi Arabia—have been at the forefront of anti-nuclear movements, yet their perspectives are systematically sidelined in mainstream discourse. These groups highlight how nuclear risks intersect with other forms of oppression, such as gender-based violence and economic marginalisation. Their exclusion from policy debates reflects a broader pattern of securitisation that prioritises state interests over human security, particularly for those already facing multiple forms of discrimination.