Follow us on social

Ukraine Civilians

Bombardments making Ukraine, Gaza toxic for generations

New report finds dangerously high levels of lead, uranium, and other heavy metals in wartorn cities.

Reporting | QiOSK

A new report finds dangerously high levels of uranium and lead contamination in Fallujah, Iraq, and other places that experience massive military bombardments in wartime, resulting in birth defects and long-term health risks among the people who live there

The report — from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs — presages the dangers of prolonged conflict in places like Ukraine and Gaza, both of which have experienced sustained bombing campaigns for 3 years and 18 months, respectively. Indeed, precautions can be taken to reduce dangerous exposure to those who return to their homes after conflict ends, but the authors also point out that “the most effective way to limit heavy metal toxicity from war is by not bombing cities” at all.

Researchers found that 29% of Iraqis living in Fallujah have uranium in their bones, and 100% have lead contamination. Uranium is toxic to humans, and lead can be at high levels. The levels found at Fallujah were 600% higher than the national average in the United States.

These findings add to years of research done on the after-effects of America’s campaigns in Fallujah. In central Iraq, Fallujah was the scene of two destructive campaigns during the Iraq War. Several insurgent groups were operating in Fallujah in 2003, and in 2004, four American contractors were killed, with their bodies put on display. The United States launched the First Battle of Fallujah shortly after in an attempt to capture the perpetrators.

The first battle lasted only around a month, and the Second Battle of Fallujah broke out in November as the U.S. wanted to retake the city from insurgents. By November, 2,000 American and 600 Iraqi troops were participating in the assault, supported by air and artillery strikes. Most of the civilians were warned and subsequently evacuated, but tens of thousands remained during the fighting, which lasted until late December.

By the end of 2004, 60% of the city’s buildings were destroyed, 50-70% of the population had fled, and an estimated 800 civilians were killed. The after-effects were astounding, with infant mortality rates spiking to 13% from 2009-2010 (as opposed to around 2% in Egypt, for example). Birth defects were so widespread that some doctors warned parents to hold off on having children.

Heavy metal contaminants are often present in old war zones, either from the weapons that were used (including depleted uranium found in munitions) or burn pits used to destroy weapons and equipment, as the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the Costs of War study, exposure to these metals can especially harm individuals as they age and during pregnancy. It can lead to cancers, issues with neurodevelopment and cardiovascular health, and birthing complications.

The Department of Defense estimated that 3.5 million American soldiers may have returned from active duty only to suffer from health problems related to toxic metal exposure. Despite this, the military has approved soldiers to continue using burn pits under certain conditions.

The Costs of War report also highlighted how those who return to war-torn areas are often exposed to these metals as they clean up, often without proper protective equipment. Additionally, water and food sources can be contaminated or even destroyed following military campaigns.

The report’s authors recommend that as civilians return to their homes in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, or Ukraine, they wear proper face coverings to prevent inhaling toxic debris, bury rather than burn trash, and take vitamin supplements to combat some of the adverse effects of exposure to heavy metals.

The report concludes that “the detonation and widespread use of heavy metals should be avoided at all costs” as “damage to the quality of air, soil, and water is long-lasting.” It adds that nations can disinvest from weapons sales and invest in more “effective and sophisticated forms of international relations” as a way to reduce civilian heavy metal exposure.


Top Photo: Zhytomyr, Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine - March 8 2022: On March 8, 2022, a Russian Su-34 bomber dropped two 250 kg bombs on a civilian house in Zhitomir, Ukraine (Shutterstock/Volodymyr Vorobiov)
Bombardments making Ukraine, Gaza toxic for generations
Reporting | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.