Counting the Human Cost of Striking Iran

The specter of a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities looms dangerously close. After Donald Trump signaled clearly that the U.S. would join with Israel to attack Iran—especially its nuclear facilities—global tensions have spiked. The prospect of such an attack represents a looming humanitarian catastrophe. The real costs will be borne by Iranian civilians: in lives lost, homes destroyed, and futures shattered. According to conflict modeling based on the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2011 Syrian civil war, a strike on Iran could displace up to 2–4 million people in its first year, either as internal refugees or asylum seekers heading toward Turkey or Europe. The human cost—immediate and long-term—would be devastating, both for the Iranian population and for regional stability.

Civilian Casualties

Iran’s nuclear facilities—such as Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—are deeply embedded within civilian infrastructure or surrounded by population centers. A U.S. strike on these hardened, often underground sites would likely involve bunker-busting munitions, cruise missiles, and air raids. Such weaponry inevitably risks collateral damage, especially given the proximity of these sites to densely populated areas. Estimates from past U.S. military interventions suggest that a high-intensity campaign could result in at least 10,000 immediate casualties when population density and proximity to critical infrastructure are factored in.

In a recent response from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant could be extremely serious. It is an operating nuclear power plant and as such it hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear material. In case of an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant a direct hit could result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment. Similarly, a hit that disabled the only two lines supplying electrical power to the plant could cause its reactor’s core to melt, which could result in a high release of radioactivity to the environment. In their worst-case, both scenarios would necessitate protective actions, such as evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometres.

Massive Displacement
Beyond the immediate casualties, a military campaign could trigger a massive wave of internal and external displacement. Iran’s urban centers are densely populated, and many civilians live near likely military targets—military bases, power grids, and government facilities. Any escalation could provoke a refugee crisis not seen since the Syrian civil war.

Refugee and Humanitarian Crisis
The psychological trauma of war, displacement, and uncertainty would be profound, especially among youth and children, compounding what the World Health Organization refers to as the “invisible wounds of war.” Education, economic opportunity, and basic social services would all suffer, pushing a generation further into despair and potential radicalization.

Environmental Catastrophe
A military strike on nuclear facilities is not just an attack on buildings—it risks triggering radioactive leaks or widespread contamination. Even if the sites are not fully active or enriched to weapons-grade levels, the release of nuclear material into the air, water, and soil would be catastrophic. Local populations would be exposed to radiation, potentially leading to increases in cancer, birth defects, and long-term health crises for generations.

Iran’s already strained healthcare system—crippled by sanctions and economic duress—would be ill-equipped to manage a nuclear or chemical fallout. Environmental damage could spread beyond Iran’s borders, affecting neighboring countries and parts of the Persian Gulf, threatening regional ecosystems and water sources.

International Law and the Moral Abyss
Any preemptive strike—particularly one not authorized by the United Nations Security Council—would almost certainly violate international law. The principles of proportionality and necessity, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, are incompatible with the scale of destruction that would follow. Worse still, attacking Iran could set a dangerous precedent that undermines decades of nonproliferation diplomacy.

Strategic Miscalculation
Proponents of military action argue that a preemptive strike is necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. But history offers sobering lessons about the unintended consequences of such logic—from Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011. In neither case did intervention lead to peace or democracy. Instead, both nations spiraled into chaos, birthing power vacuums that gave rise to prolonged violence and immeasurable suffering.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) significantly curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and allowed for rigorous international inspections. Though imperfect, it represented a verifiable, peaceful alternative to war. Resurrecting such frameworks—combined with renewed multilateral engagement—offers a path that avoids the abyss of conflict.

Military action may seem decisive in the short term, but its consequences are profound and enduring. For the people of Iran—who have already suffered under sanctions, authoritarian governance, and economic decline—a U.S. strike would be another chapter of pain written in fire. For the region, it would be a humanitarian disaster with few exits. The price of war is not measured in targets destroyed but in human lives—and on that scale, this war is already too expensive to afford.

The IAEA has consistently underlined, as stated in its General Conference resolution, that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place, and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.