Why the threat to drinking water supplies in the Middle East marks a turning point in international law

There are forms of infrastructure whose destruction not only has military consequences but also undermines the very foundations of human existence. The drinking water supply is undoubtedly one of them. When desalination plants – which are the central lifeline in many Middle Eastern states – are specifically threatened or attacked, the logic of modern conflicts shifts: from territorial disputes to existential attacks on entire societies.

In the Gulf states and large parts of the Middle East, water is not a commodity to be taken for granted. It is a technologically produced, highly critical product. Countries such as Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia meet the majority of their drinking water needs through seawater desalination. Without these plants, the supply would collapse within a very short time. Unlike in water-rich regions, there are no natural alternatives – no rivers, no sufficiently usable groundwater reserves, no redundancies in the traditional sense.

This makes desalination plants critical infrastructure (KRITIS) in the most fundamental sense: systems whose failure directly endangers the lives of millions of people.

The militarisation of water infrastructure

The targeted threat or destruction of such facilities marks a new level of escalation. Whilst energy infrastructure, communication networks and transport systems have been discussed as military targets for years, the focus is now shifting to an area that was previously largely considered taboo: the direct supply of water to the civilian population.

Under international law, the situation is clear – at least on paper.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols prohibit attacks on objects that are indispensable for the survival of the civilian population. This explicitly includes water facilities and infrastructure. The logic behind this is clear: even in war, minimum humanitarian standards must be upheld.

Yet reality shows that these standards are coming under increasing pressure.

When water infrastructure is strategically used as a means of pressure, the line between military operation and humanitarian disaster becomes blurred. An attack on a desalination plant is not merely damage to infrastructure – it is potentially an attack on the right to life itself.

Critical infrastructure without redundancy: a systemic vulnerability

What makes the situation in the Middle East particularly explosive is structural dependency. Desalination plants are not supplementary infrastructure – they are the sole viable source of drinking water in many states.

This distinguishes them fundamentally from other critical systems:

• There are no alternatives that can be activated at short notice
• Redundancies are limited or non-existent
• Failures have an immediate and widespread impact
• Restoration is technically and time-consuming

This combination makes water infrastructure a single point of failure at the national level.

From a security policy perspective, this means:

Whoever controls or destroys water controls the stability of entire states.

International law under pressure: norms without enforcement?

Current developments raise a central question:

What significance do norms of international law have if their violation entails hardly any consequences?

International humanitarian law is based on the assumption that borders exist even in conflicts. Yet these borders are only as strong as their enforcement. When attacks on vital infrastructure become a strategic option, there is a risk of eroding precisely those norms intended to protect the civilian population.

Herein lies a responsibility that extends beyond the region.

The West’s responsibility

Historically, the West has positioned itself as the guardian of a rules-based international order. This order encompasses not only political principles but also concrete protective mechanisms – including the prohibition on attacking vital civilian infrastructure.

Yet credibility is not born of rhetoric, but of action.

If attacks on water infrastructure are not clearly identified, condemned and sanctioned, a dangerous precedent is set. Other actors could adopt this strategy – with global consequences. Water scarcity is not a regional phenomenon, but one of the central challenges of the 21st century.

Defending water as a protected asset is therefore not only a humanitarian but also a geopolitical task.

Water as a strategic resource of the 21st century

The current situation in the Middle East exemplifies how conflicts are changing. Resources that were once taken for granted are becoming strategic levers. Water is perhaps the most sensitive of all.

The United Nations has recognised access to clean drinking water as a human right. Yet this right remains fragile when the infrastructure that makes it possible becomes a target.

Conclusion: A red line that must not be crossed

When water becomes a weapon, nothing less is at stake than the question of whether there are still universal values worth protecting in the 21st century – or whether even the most basic necessities of life become part of geopolitical calculations.

The answer to this will not be decided in the Middle East alone. It will also become apparent in the political and legal responses of the West.

[DCM]