Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly announced on August 11, 2025, that some regions of the country, including the capital Tehran, are facing a “serious” water crisis. Pezeshkian’s warning can be considered a significant development not only in domestic politics but also in terms of regional security and geopolitical balances. This crisis, which Iran faces due to multifaceted factors such as climate change, excessive water use, flawed agricultural policies, and inadequate infrastructure, demonstrates that water is increasingly becoming a strategic asset and a potential source of tension in international relations.
Following Pezeshkian’s statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a striking message. In his public address, Netanyahu addressed Iranian people by symbolically holding a glass of water and a pitcher. In his message, he stated that if the Iranian regime were toppled, Israeli experts would come to the country to solve the water problem. Such symbolic forms of communication not only convey a political message but also serve as part of psychological warfare and propaganda techniques. Netanyahu’s remarks aimed to highlight the inadequacy of the current administration in eyes of the Iranian people and to strengthen Israel’s technical capacity and international image.
Another striking aspect of this incident is that it has revived global debates about water resources as a key driver of future conflicts. The United Nations and various research organisations have for years reported that water scarcity, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, will steadily increase, triggering migration and creating new risks for international security. The current political tension between Israel and Iran has taken on a new dimension through this water crisis discourse, once again highlighting the importance of the concepts of “water diplomacy” or “water geopolitics.”
From Iran’s perspective, the water crisis is not merely a technical and environmental problem; it also threatens social stability. Inequitable access to water in the country accelerates migration from rural areas to cities, leading to additional problems such as unemployment, housing shortages, and infrastructure strain. For the regime, this situation creates an area of vulnerability that could exacerbate public dissatisfaction with government.
Pezeshkian’s statement goes beyond acknowledging this vulnerability and serves as a national alarm call. Netanyahu’s approach, on the other hand, can be interpreted in two ways. First, it is an attempt to highlight Israel’s technological superiority in the region, particularly its achievements in water management. Israel holds a global leadership position in numerous areas, from drip irrigation techniques to wastewater reuse. In this context, offering assistance to the Iranian people can be interpreted as interference in the state’s sovereignty and internal affairs. Second, this message points to a strategy aimed at emboldening anti-regime elements in Iran and influencing domestic political balances.
In international security literature, water, along with energy and food security, is examined under the rubric of “resource security,” emphasising that struggles over the scarcity or control of these resources can increase the risk of interstate conflict. Such crises, particularly in regions where water resources are transboundary, can foster cooperation but also exacerbate tensions. In Middle East, the current political polarisation and lack of trust undermine the possibility of cooperation. Predictions that water crises will trigger future wars are not theoretical speculation.
Historically, disputes over water resources such as the Nile River, the Euphrates-Tigris basin, and the Jordan River have been significant drivers of regional tensions. These tensions are expected to intensify today due to the effects of climate change. Rising temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns, and longer drought periods are negatively impacting water-dependent agricultural economies in particular. This situation not only has economic consequences but also has potential to trigger migration, social unrest, and political instability.
With water scarcity, disruptions in energy production, declines in agricultural exports, and weakening of local economies may also become inevitable. Therefore, this war of words between Iran and Israel is a contemporary example of strategic importance of water as a diplomatic tool and potential cause of conflict. Consequently, Pezeshkian’s warning of a water crisis and Netanyahu’s symbolic countermove are not only a reflection of the rivalry between the two countries but also a manifestation of the fragility of water resource security on a global scale.
Water, a new “strategic resource” poised to replace oil in the 21st century, is at the centre of international politics. In this context, current developments require careful monitoring for both Iran’s internal stability and overall security balance of the Middle East. It is clear that water diplomacy and water management policies will be decisive in the coming years, not only for environmental sustainability but also for regional peace and stability. Therefore, developing cooperative mechanisms in water management, sharing technological innovations, developing policies that promote water conservation, and discussing climate change adaptation strategies on a common basis will play a critical role in preventing future conflicts.
