Early March, media reports stated that Israel fired over residential areas of southern Lebanon white phosphorus, an incendiary that ignites on contact with air, causing severe burns and posing lethal risks to humans, animals and the environment. A month earlier, Lebanese authorities reported that an Israeli aircraft had sprayed concentrated glyphosate over agricultural areas at levels many times higher than those used in agricultural use. Aerial spraying of glyphosate, a herbicide, could lead to significant contamination of waterbodies and soil systems. Conflict and Environment Observatory, a UK-based non-profit, has identified 120 such incidents of environmental harm linked to the current conflict across west Asia, which show how ecological damage emerges as a collateral consequence of war.
In early March Israeli airstrikes were reported to have struck several oil depots and refineries around Tehran, triggering massive fires that released thick plumes of soot, hydrocarbons and other pollutants. Residents also reported episodes of dark, soot-laden “black rain”. Authorities and international agencies warned of such acid precipitation as sulphur and nitrogen compounds from burning fuel entered the atmosphere.
When such incidents occur, there is a need to examine how environmental harm during conflict is conceptualised and regulated, and at what point it may be treated as a distinct category of harm, rather than an incidental impact. The most frequently cited historical example of deliberate environmental harm in armed conflict is the use of defoliants like Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Large-scale aerial spraying of the tactical herbicide altered forest ecosystems and contaminated soils and water sources for decades. Since then, international humanitarian law has attempted to incorporate environmental protection into the conduct of warfare.
The 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention prohibits methods of warfare expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to natural environment. Similarly, of the 27 principles adopted under the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, Principle 24 recognises that warfare is inherently destructive to sustainable development.
Despite such provisions, accountability mechanisms remain limited …
This article was originally published as part of the special package "Attacks that will outlast the war" in the April 1-15, 2026 print edition of Down To Earth