The dirty war

Given the loss of nerve among Western elites, and the tendency of progressives to believe in an omnicause, it’s not especially surprising that the left is also complaining that the Iran war is polluting. War is literally a dirty business, as the prevalence in World War One not just of “trench foot” but the even more appalling-sounding “trench mouth” can testify. And now a Bloomberg Greenemail subject-lined “Black rain is only the beginning” pointed to a story headlined: “Iran War-Fueled Pollution Put Millions at Risk/ Tehran already had polluted air, but it’s being made worse by Israeli and US airstrikes on oil infrastructure.” If you like you can amuse yourself searching the archives for Bloomberg Green stories about pollution in Iran prior to Feb. 28. Or the current copy for any hint that perhaps “carbon pollution” to describe CO2 was a bit overwrought given what actual sooty “black rain” carbon pollution is like. Or the negative environmental consequences of Iran’s proxies raining death on Israel for decades. The silence on these things hitherto is part of a familiar appeasement-mentality pattern where only the West is capable of actions with negative consequences.

Thus, the story adds:

“Bombing fossil fuel depots and refineries has created toxic conditions for 10 million people living in the city, and the legacy of war could last for decades.”

On the other hand, once the war started the New York Times discovered that:

“Tehran’s Smothering Smoke Has Roots in ‘Mazut,’ an Unusually Dirty Fuel/ The low-grade oil has been used to fuel power plants amid Iran’s international isolation. Tanks of mazut may now be burning near the city.”

Boo mazut. Boo international isolation. Though the piece eventually conceded that:

“Iran’s increasing reliance on mazut stems from the country’s economic isolation and trade sanctions, as well as decades of mismanagement and the decay of critical infrastructure. Though the country has rich deposits of oil and natural gas, it has faced crippling fuel shortages at home. Iran also sells much of its higher-value fossil fuel products overseas to raise foreign currency. That leaves mazut to fill in for a shortage at home.”

The piece never pondered why Iran might be isolated and subject to sanctions, or why it was so desperate for hard currency. (Hint: it’s connected with 50 years of funding an expensive worldwide death-to-Jews terror apparatus. Other hint: most of their oil goes in “ghost fleets” to China, for whose government climate alarmists feel an attraction as powerful as it is bizarre.)

Oh, and one of their main “Climate Forward” columnists, David Gelles, joined the chorus with:

“In addition to raising concerns about a humanitarian crisis and setting off a global energy crisis, the war in Iran is emerging as a major environmental disaster. Over the weekend, Israeli strikes ignited four fuel depots near Tehran, unleashing toxic black clouds of smoke over the city of around 10 million and leading to apocalyptic scenes across the Iranian capital.”

Try to find commentary by him or his paper on the environmental harm of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iranian rockets landing in Israel. To be fair, Gelles does now complain about an Iranian drone hitting a desalination plant in Bahrain as well as reporting Iranian claims that the US had hit an Iranian one. But then he throws in:

“Even before the war, Iran was in a water crisis, in part driven by climate change, Lisa Friedman writes.”

As we’ve said before, climate change is a statistical description of long-term changes in weather patterns and can’t “drive” anything. Except us round the bend. As with Gelles closing with:

“After Iran’s brief war with Israel last year, Naghmeh Mobarghaee Dinan, a member of the Supreme Council for Environmental Protection of Iran, said the conflict had been more than a military confrontation. Instead, she said, it was ‘a crisis that goes beyond the battlefield – with consequences for ecosystems, wildlife and public health that we are only beginning to understand.’”

But again, not a word about Iran starting it with a decades-long rain of missiles from its Lebanese and Palestinian proxies. Only if the West does it is it bad.

Now it is true that war is polluting. As that article observes, and here we do not disagree:

“Missiles and bombs contain heavy metals and other toxic pollutants, which are released into the air, soil and water when they explode and crash, often lingering for decades and posing health risks. Cleanup is difficult and expensive.”

But to portray the war as an otherwise pointless and bizarre ecological disaster might risk leaving your audience with a one-sided view.

Even the Washington Times, not a left-wing outlet, emailed us “‘We won,’ Trump says, but Iran controls economic shockwaves”. And although Trump clearly got ahead of himself or just made stuff up, the idea that the smouldering remains of the regime in Teheran were controlling the consequences strikes us as unreasonable. But it’s also odd that, as the article teased to by that email wrote:

“Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, urged Mr. Trump to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying the president is delusional. ‘He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to pay for gas, to pay for the rent, to pay for groceries. He’s in a bubble,’ Mr. Schumer said.”

Perhaps. But so surely is Sen. Schumer if he believes his party has been strongly supportive of lower gas prices. Ask Gavin Newsom.