How nuclear testing leaves lasting environmental scars

With analysts predicting further nuclear tests in North Korea, the planet stands to lose. The ongoing environmental effects of nuclear testing are felt worldwide and for millions of years.

The detonated scores of nuclear weapons in its so-called Pacific Proving Grounds

Since late September, North Korea has launched a flurry of ballistic missile tests as part of what experts believe is a program to develop so-called tactical nuclear weapons. If the reclusive state were to move beyond testing missiles to testing actual nuclear warheads, as some analysts are predicting, it would not only ramp up political tensions, but also pose a significant environmental threat. 

In the past, countries such as the United States, the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom tested their nuclear weapons in the open atmosphere and in the sea — and around Pacific Islands, the Australian desert, mainland US, remote parts of the USSR and other places. These tests left contaminated landscapes and spread their radioactive clouds far afield. 

Thanks to global treaties, nuclear tests were largely moved underground after 1963, a slightly preferable scenario environmentally speaking. And since a 1996 test ban, only India, Pakistan and North Korea have tested weapons at all. 

North Korea is the only country known to have conducted tests in the 21st century. 

The impact of nuclear testing on mammals

"The legacy of nuclear weapons testing has been absolutely catastrophic for humans and for the environment," said Alicia Sanders, the policy research coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. 

One of the unique consequences for the environment, she added, "is that it lasts essentially forever."

Putting aside the development required to set up test sites, the first major effects are felt in the microseconds after the explosion. 

A 2015 paper on the environmental impact of military actions found that nuclear blasts represent an extreme threat to local biodiversity. 

The massive energy released in the thermal emission from the blast — comprising light and heat — kills any organisms unfortunate enough to be near the epicenter. Depending on the yield of the bomb, even organisms several kilometers away face lethal temperatures. What remains is a charred mess.  

The effect from the thermal shock on animals is not well researched, but humans face serious, life-threatening burns even several kilometers away, depending on the power of the bomb. A similar effect is assumed for other mammals. They also suffer from the pressure of the blast, which causes lung damage and hemorrhaging.

And animals that aren't killed immediately are more likely to die from infections in the days and weeks following the explosion, leading to a localized die-off event, the 2015 review found.

Crater and debris following an underground detonation a nuclear device in India

The impact on plants, birds and marine life

Plants are also not spared the effects of a nuclear blast. The sheer force strips trees of their foliage, tears down branches and uproots vegetation.  

For fish, meanwhile, the impact is similar to that of a non-nuclear explosion, but on a much larger scale. The US tests in Alaska, and those of France in French Polynesia in the late 1960s and early 70s were associated with large-scale die-offs of fish, as their gas-filled swim bladders ruptured.

Marine mammals and diving birds suffered similarly, post-mortem analysis showed. However, marine non-vertebrates appeared to be more resistant to pressure waves as they do not have gas-containing organs, according to defense studies at the time. 

Long-term environmental impacts

During the Cold War, the United States detonated scores of nuclear weapons in atmospheric tests in the Pacific. Entire islands were incinerated and many are still uninhabitable. Local residents were forced to leave. A 2019 study found that some of the affected areas had radiation levels 1,000-times that of those found in Chernobyl and Fukushima. 

Significant long-term environmental consequences of nuclear testing are the contamination of surface soil and groundwater, land disturbances in the form of craters or partially collapsed mountains — as in the case of the North Korean testing site — and the addition of radionuclides to sediments in seabeds.

The landscape around the Nevada test site is pockmarked with giant craters

Atmospheric nuclear tests spread radionuclides — unstable particles that releases radiation as they break down — far and wide, contaminating topsoil.

But even in underground testing, high pressure conditions can propel radionuclides into the atmosphere — a phenomenom known as venting — where they can be carried by winds and deposited far away from the test sites and enter food-chains.

Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's nuclear policy program, says Pyongyang has thus far avoided the pitfall of venting.

"The North Koreans have actually, with their last five nuclear tests at least, been very effective at preventing the venting of radionuclides," he said. "Because some of these radionuclides can even offer hints about the specific materials that are being used in the nuclear device."

At the very least, underground tests deposit huge quantities of radioactive material which will remain there for millions of years. The long-term ecological damage from such contamination is unknown.  

The impact on drinking water

Underground testing also poses a threat of radionuclides leeching into drinking water.

Studies at the US nuclear testing site near Las Vegas, found that some contaminants released by underground nuclear tests can get into the surrounding water. Plants and animals are particularly liable to pick up radioactive strontium and caesium, which are easily spread in water.

With a half-life of 30 years, these two radionuclides can cause health issues in the food chain for decades. A common shrub in New Mexico, chamisa, has roots that extend deep into the ground, bringing strontium back up to the surface near the Los Alamos testing site in New Mexico, from where it can be widely distributed as the leaves fall, decay, and contaminate the soil understory.

"Animals will eat from contaminated land and that becomes very dangerous. These can be key sources of food for people," ICAN's Sanders said.

Organizations such as ICAN continue to push for complete denuclearization. 

Until that happens, one factor that might help clean up the legacy of nuclear testing is a provision in the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which requires signatories to provide assistance to victims of nuclear weapons and begin to remediate contaminated environments. States should next year begin initial assessments of environmental damage and use that as a basis for future remediation efforts. 

Edited by: Tamsin Walker

DW RECOMMENDS

Payouts promised to Fijian veterans of British nuclear testing

Fijian victims of British nuclear testing in 1958 are to get compensation, according to Fiji's government. Seventy military personnel were taken to Christmas Island, a test site in the Pacific, more than 50 years ago.  

North Korea blows up tunnels at nuclear test site

Pyongyang has dismantled its nuclear testing site deep in the mountains of the country's northeast. While foreign journalists were on hand, international inspectors were not invited to witness the event.  

How high is the risk of Putin using a nuclear weapon?

Moscow keeps threatening to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But is the Russian president prepared for a nuclear conflict?  

• Date 12.10.2022
• Author Alistair Walsh

A terrifying animation shows how 1 'tactical' nuclear weapon could trigger a US-Russia war that kills 34 million people in 5 hours

Ellen Ioanes and Dave Mosher
Updated

"Plan A" is an audio-visual simulation that shows how so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons could lead to a highly fatal global conflict between the Russia, the US, and allies. Princeton University/Nuclear Futures Lab

A simulation called "Plan A" produced by researchers shows how the use of one so-called tactical or low-yield nuclear weapon could lead to a terrifying worldwide conflict.

In the roughly four-minute video, a Russian "nuclear warning shot" at a US-NATO coalition is followed by a tactical nuke that leads to a global nuclear war.

The video was produced war at a time of heightened tensions between Russia and NATO, which have again found themselves at odds over a worsening war in Ukraine.

More than 91 million people in Russia, the US, and other NATO countries might be killed or injured within three hours following a single "nuclear warning shot," according to a terrifying simulation.

The simulation is called "Plan A," and it's an audio-visual piece that was first posted to to YouTube on September 6, 2019. Researchers at the Science and Global Security lab at Princeton University created the animation, which shows how a battle between Russia and NATO allies involving the use of a so-called low-yield or "tactical" nuclear weapons — which can pack a blast equivalent to if not greater than the atomic bombs the US used to destroy Hiroshima or Nagasaki in World War II — might feasibly and quickly snowball into a global nuclear war.

"This project is motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The risk of nuclear war has increased dramatically in the past two years," the project states on its website.

The video has an ominous, droning soundtrack and a digital map design straight out of the 1983 movie "WarGames." The Cold War-era movie, in which a young Matthew Broderick accidentally triggers a nuclear war, "was exactly the reference point," simulation designer Alex Wellerstein told Insider.

But while simulations can be frightening, they can also be incredibly helpful. Governments can use them to develop contingency plans to respond to nuclear disasters and attacks in the least escalatory way, and they can also help ordinary citizens learn how to survive a nuclear attack.

"Plan A" was released as tensions between Russia and NATO allies and as Russia and the US were testing weapons previously banned under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Russia's war against Ukraine has once against put Russia and NATO at odds, with concerns growing that the war could see the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine or expand into a broader conflict that goes nuclear.

The following shows how a NATO-Russia conflict involving a nuclear warning shot and the use of a tactical nuclear weapon could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war.

The simulation starts with a conventional war between NATO and Russian troops.

At this point in the simulation, Russia fires a nuclear "warning shot," prompting a tactical US response. Science and Global Security, Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Policy

In the scenario researchers presented, conventional warfare, which is all conflict not involving the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, escalates into nuclear warfare when Russia launches a nuclear "warning shot" from a base near Kaliningrad to stop NATO advancement. Russia doesn't have a "no first use" policy since it dropped it in 1993. NATO forces respond by launching a tactical nuclear strike.

The US already has tactical nuclear weapons, such as B61-12 gravity bombs, and the Trump administration made the development of more a priority. Russia, however, has the largest arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons.

These kinds of weapons are designed for targets on the battlefield, like troops or munitions supplies, as opposed to long- or intermediate-range nuclear missiles that are fired from one country to another, for example, targeting an enemy's bombers and ICBM silos — or even cities.

Tactical nuclear strikes up the ante.

In the simulation, both Russia and NATO up the ante with tactical strikes. Princeton Science and Global Security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

If the nuclear threshold is crossed, the simulation finds, then both the US and Russia would respond with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia would send 300 warheads to NATO targets, including advancing troops, in both aircraft and short-range missiles — overwhelming force that would obliterate tanks, fortified positions and soldiers unlike anything ever seen in battle before. Supporting forces and civilians not immediately killed would be susceptible to painful and even fatal radiation exposure.

NATO would respond by sending about 180 tactical nuclear weapons to Russia via aircraft in equally devastating retaliation.

The simulation was constructed using independent analysis of nuclear force postures in NATO countries and Russia, including the availability of nuclear weapons, their yields, and possible targets, according to the Science and Global Security lab.

The tactical phase of the simulation shows about 2.6 million casualties over three hours.

Instead of the tactical weapons de-escalating the conflict, as proponents claim they would, the simulation shows conflict spiraling out of control after the use of tactical weapons.

The simulation shows that Russia and NATO allies would deploy nuclear weapons against each others' 30 most populous cities, killing 3.4 million over the span of 45 minutes. Princeton Science and Global Security, Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs

Russia's tactical weapons would destroy much of Europe, the simulation posits. In response, NATO would launch submarine- and US-based strategic nuclear weapons toward Russia's nuclear arsenals — 600 warheads in total.

Strategic nuclear weapons have a longer range, so Russia, knowing that NATO nukes are headed for its weapons cache, would throw all its weight behind missiles launched from silos, mobile launchers, and submarines.

The casualties during this phase would be 3.4 million in 45 minutes.

This leads to 85.3 million additional casualties in the final phase of the nuclear war simulation.

By the final stage of the simulation, there are 91.5 million casualties — all in the span of three hours. Princeton University Science and Global Security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

In the wake of previous attacks, both Russia and NATO would launch warheads toward each other's 30 most populous cities in the final stage of of the scenario, using five to 10 warheads for each city depending on its size.

This phase would cause 85.3 million casualties — both deaths and injuries. But the total casualty count from the entire battle (of less than 5 hours) would be 34.1 million deaths and 57.4 million injuries, or a combined 91.3 million casualties overall.

But that's just the immediate conflict: The entire world would be affected by nuclear disaster in the months, years, and decades to come.

The radioactive fallout from the nuclear disaster would cause additional deaths and injuries. Studies also suggest that, even with a limited nuclear engagement, Earth's atmosphere would cool dramatically, driving famine, refugee crises, additional conflicts, and more deaths.

Update: This story originally published in 2019 has been updated and republished given concerns about tactical nuclear weapons, the war in Ukraine, and the risk of a broader war and nuclear conflict.

German angst reaches fever pitch amid cost of living crisis

Lack of affordable housing and a stagnating economy dominated this year's comprehensive study into what Germans worry about most. Authoritarianism and war also weighed heavily on people's minds.

Shops across the country have been shuttered as the rising cost of products and energy becomes

 too much to bear

A year ago, Germans were most preoccupied with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – not the prospect of getting sick, but rather the effect it would have on their wallets. According to the latest annual study on what Germans fear the most, eight months of war in Europe and inflation have now sent money anxieties into overdrive.

"Germany is experiencing its highest inflation in almost 50 years. Around half of this is due to the sharp rise in energy and food prices," the report published on Thursday said. "Accordingly, the fears of an explosion in the cost of living are correspondingly high." Indeed, the 67% of respondents who said they feared they could not cope with increasing costs represents a massive increase of 17 points on the previous year.

​

Financial fears 'skyrocket'

Conducted by insurance giant R+V Versicherung every year, the study polls some 2,400 people across the country about what most weighs on their minds. While in previous years, study leaders have noted that "Germans aren't by nature worrywarts" and are simply reacting to the acute challenges around them, this year's study paints a different picture.

In 2022, "the general anxiety index…rose by six percentage points and, at 42%, reached its highest level in four years," said study leader Grischa Brower-Rabinowitsch. "That anxious peek into one's bank account balance is causing financial fears to skyrocket. Overall, people are significantly more worried than they were a year ago."

Affordable housing crisis looming

Indeed, in a country where debt has long been a taboo, the study revealed that in 2022, financial fears have reached new heights – with different economic worries taking over the top five spots.

Study co-author Manfred Schmidt, professor emeritus of political science at Heidelberg University, told DW that in a country where "inflation is seen as a societal illness," it is no wonder money worries have overtaken fears about the climate or the pandemic.

This includes the worry of being able to find affordable housing, something that has never appeared before in the study's 36-year history, and jumped straight to the number-two biggest worry in the minds of Germans, affecting more than half of respondents.

While other countries have struggled for decades with rising rents and large investors scooping up homes that previously would have been sold to single families, Germans felt relatively unaffected by these issues until recently. Although Chancellor Olaf Scholz's government has presented a plan to build 400,000 new affordable homes per year, experts have warned that inflation and the lack of qualified personnel will make this goal difficult to attain.

According to Germany's Federal Statistical Office, or Destatis, the number of new apartments available has plunged since the 1990s, and stagnated since a short uptick in the early 2010s. At the same time, rents have increased drastically while wages have not, especially in big cities, where rents are about 21% higher than the national average.

Schmidt explained that on top of increasing real estate costs, there is "a much greater need for housing for smaller households," meaning those comprising fewer people, than there has been in the past. "The demand for this far outweighs what is available."

Public wary of war, climate change

Besides driving inflation, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also brought the prospect of war to the forefront of people's minds. In a country where defense spending has long been deeply unpopular, the idea of entering a war has now become even more anathema to Germans.

In that vein, the rise of authoritarianism worldwide – something that had never come up in the study before – jumped in the top ten concerns, and the worry that Germany could be dragged into a war rose by 26 points to place eleventh.

Another major worry was climate change. Although Germany did not experience any natural disasters this year on the same scale as the catastrophic flooding in the west of the country in July 2021, summer droughts and heatwaves, as well as disasters elsewhere in the world, coupled with perceived government inaction, ensured that climate breakdown was not far from people's minds. Some 46% of respondents told R+V they were worried about the climate in 2022, compared to 40% in 2021.

"Climate worries are no longer theoretical, they are tangible," said Brower-Rabinowitsch on Thursday.

Opinion: Iran protests a struggle for self-determination

In their struggle for self-determination, Iranians are displaying a level of courage and cohesion we have not seen before. That's why the protests sparked by Jina Mahsa Amini's death are feminist, writes Katajun Amirpur.

Students in a girls' school in Tehran remove their headscarves in protest against the

 Iranian government

The uprising in Iran is feminist. After all, feminism isn't about putting women in power instead of men. It is about self-determination for all, men and women alike. And today's protesters regard the enforced wearing of the hijab as a symbol of the state's refusal to grant them self-determination.

This right covers much more than "just" the right to dress as you like; it means the 50% of Iranians whose first language isn't Farsi being allowed to learn their first languages in schools; it means lesbians and gay men being able to freely express their sexual orientation; it means the Bahai being allowed to practice their religion — and so on.

Katajun Amirpur is a scholar of Islam and an expert on Iran. She lives and works in Cologne.

The artist Shervin Hajipour's song "Baraye" (meaning "for" or "because"), which has become a hymn of the uprising, summarizes a series of Twitter posts in which protesters give their reasons for taking to the streets: for dancing in the street; for the girl who wishes she was born a boy; for freedom, freedom, freedom. And there may well be as many men as women currently demonstrating for these things. In this respect, too, the videos that are now going viral are probably giving us a skewed picture.

But the hijab is symbolic of all this, and that is why young girls are now tearing off their headscarves. Ironically, the hijab has been used as the ultimate symbol for systemic change in Iran once before, during the revolution that took place in 1978/79. And it looks like it might be again.

A sledgehammer approach to modernization

The hijab is tightly bound up with the history of emancipation in Iran, in the sense of liberation from a paternalistic state — and not just since 1978, the year of the last Iranian revolution of the 20th century: Reza Shah Pahlavi banned women from wearing it in 1936. Reza Shah, the Cossack general who rose to become an emperor, wanted to modernize his country in every way, even aesthetically — and he was prepared to take a sledgehammer approach to achieve this. And so Iranian women were banned by law from wearing a headscarf. The state itself tore the hijab from the heads of women in the street.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who succeeded his father on the throne, was at first a weak, indulgent ruler. Under his regime the hijab ban was less strictly enforced. Women and girls were free to wear a hijab in schools and on the street. It could still be detrimental to your career, however. An employee in a ministry or a bank, for instance, would have to choose between their headscarf and their job. Nor could they be worn in universities.

Mohammad Reza continued his father's policy of westernization, which was once again shown first and foremost in outward appearances, such as the women wearing miniskirts and high heels who were now to be seen on the streets of Tehran.

This new image for women — and the fact that they were much more present in public — met with resistance from sections of the conservative population. In an impressive study, the sociologist Martin Riesebrodt showed that the changes to the role of women was not just one of many points on the Islamists' agenda, but their central concern.

Ali Shariati, for example, who was arguably the revolution's most important ideologue, said the new Iranian woman had become a tawdry doll who wanted only to please. He wrote: "So-called religion makes cry-babies of our women; so-called civilization makes them barmaids." The changes were not just to women's appearance, but also to their legal status. In the 1960s, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's criticism of the shah also focused on the new family law, which was designed to give women greater legal equality.

Hijab as a symbol of protest against the shah

Although the shah certainly introduced some laws that improved women's legal status, including giving them the right to vote, he remained primarily a dictator to them. In 1978, many Iranian women began wearing a hijab when they took to the streets to demonstrate against political oppression, as a way of manifesting their anti-shah position. The headscarf became the ultimate symbol of protest against the shah.

Women also played a crucial role in the toppling of the shah's regime. The opposition politician and women's rights campaigner Parvaneh Eskandari, who was murdered in 1998 by henchmen of the Islamist regime, once made a statement that may seem surprising in light of the situation of women under the current regime. "Women played the same role as men [in toppling the shah — Editor's note]. But you mustn't forget that women had more constraints placed on them under the shah. In religion, they saw a way to overcome those constraints."

The revolutionary leader Khomeini had promised freedom in all areas, but what followed was history repeating itself, though the omens were reversed. The headscarf became compulsory. Three rulers, one maxim: we will prescribe how women must dress, and deny them self-determination even in their choice of clothing.

Iranian scholars debate the hijab

Admittedly, things had been shifting in Iran for a long time prior to the protests that have now broken out — at least in the debate around the headscarf. And even among the imams, who are traditionally the hijab's greatest advocates. Ayatollah Fazel Meybodi from the theologists' capital of Ghom, for example, explained some years ago that, "The religious enlightener argues: I believe in the hijab. But a government interfering and saying, woman, why are you not wearing a hijab, no, I don't accept that. That is not the job of a government.”

There was some danger involved in making any critical statement about the hijab, as the case of liberal cleric Hasan Eshkevari shows. He said: "The hijab is not one of the essential features of our religion; it is one of those social commandments that can change depending on circumstances."

These words saw him charged with renouncing his religion in 2001, an offense that carries the death penalty in Iran. [Eshkevari was initially sentenced to death, but the sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment — Editor's note.]

And it is not only Iranian history that can be written in relation to the headscarf. It is also the ultimate symbol of this Iranian system. There are only three ideological pillars that make Iran an Islamic Republic. Two of them — the Iranian state doctrine and anti-Americanism — have been increasingly called into question since the late 1990s.

IRAN PROTESTS: RALLIES AND GRAFFITI WORLDWIDE IN SUPPORT OF IRANIAN WOMEN
At the Iranian Embassy in Mexico City
A woman spray-paints messages against "macho country" Iran on a wall of the Iranian Embassy in Mexico City in solidarity with Iranian women and in memory of Jina Mahsa Amini — the 22-year-old woman who died in custody after she was detained by Iranian authorities for allegedly violating strict Islamic dress codes for women.
12345678

And then there is the hijab. It isn't unfair of the West to associate the word "Iran” with the headscarf first and foremost. If Iran were to scrap this symbol, it would probably serve as sufficient evidence for the West that Iran was willing to reform. But that would be shortsighted.

Fear is dissipating

For this reason, the Islamists will cling to this piece of fabric for as long as they possibly can. The feminist lawyer Mehrangiz Kar once made a compelling argument for why Islamic systems of rule usually begin with the oppression of women. "They're choosing the weakest victims to create an atmosphere of fear. When fear rules, then everyone is afraid and the rulers can stabilize their power. It's impossible to imagine half of the people living in fear and at the same time the population as a whole confidently grappling with political problems."

For many people, this fear has now abated. The whole of the young generation is so fed up of being infantilized, disciplined and monitored that they are now hitting back when the regime's henchmen start beating them. You can see this right now on the many videos being shared on social media, and it's new.

In this struggle for self-determination, people are displaying a level of courage and cohesion we haven't seen before. For that reason, what we are seeing now is feminist. And feminist foreign policy would mean supporting Iranians in this feminist aim to achieve self-determination in their lives. 

This article was originally published on Qantara.de.

DW RECOMMENDS

Iran: What can Germany do to support the protest movement?

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock says Iran's Islamic clerical regime "is on the wrong side of history" and has pledged new sanctions from the EU.  

• Date 13.10.2022

UPDATES

Amnesty: 23 children killed amid Iran's 'all-out attack on child protesters'


Hundreds gather for the Iranian American Women Foundation's candlelight vigil for Mahsa Amini at West Hollywood Park in West Hollywood, Cali., on Sept. 29. On Thursday, Amnesty International said at least 23 children have been killed by security forces in Iran amid widespread anti-regime protests. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 14 (UPI) -- At least 23 children have died due to Iran's bloody crackdown on widespread anti-regime protests, Amnesty International said in a damning report that details who the children were and how they were killed amid the demonstrations that began last month.

In the 19-page report published Thursday, the British-based human rights organization states the children, who are between the ages of 11 and 17, were killed during the first 10 days of what some have described as a popular uprising against the Islamic regime.

The organization accuses Iran of conducting an "all-out attack on child protesters."

"Iran's security forces have killed nearly two dozen children in an attempt to crush the spirit of resistance among the country's courageous youth," Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement.

The victims tallied by the report include 20 boys and three girls.

The majority of the boys were killed by live ammunition though two died after being shot with metal pellets at close range, it said, adding that the three girls and one boy died after being beaten by security forces.

The protests erupted last month after 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish Iranian woman, died while in police custody.

She was arrested by the country's so-called morality police on accusations of not complying with strict hijab laws on Sept. 13 while visiting Tehran with her family.

She died three days later. Credible reports state she was beaten and possibly tortured, which caused her to fall into a coma prior to her death.

As the protests spread throughout the country in response, the regime of Iran's spiritual leader Ali Khamenei have attempted to silence dissidents by force, while blaming the United States for encouraging the unrest.

Amnesty International says the children tallied represent only 16% of the 144 protesters killed whose names and details it has been able to record. All of the deaths occurred in September, and the organization said it is investigating reports of deaths that have occurred this month.

The Oslo-based Iran Human Rights said that as of Thursday at least 201 protesters have been killed. It also states that 23 children are among its tally.

The organization added in a statement that on top of the deaths, many school-age children have been arrested and sent to what the education ministry calls psychiatric centers where they are to be "corrected."

The United States, the United Nations and other democratic countries and organizations have repeatedly called on Iran to cease its crackdown and allow peaceful protests, but Morayef said the Iranian authorities have ignored those pleas.

"The price of this systematic impunity is being paid with human lives, including children's," Morayef said. "Member states engaging at the U.N. Human Rights Council should urgently hold a special session and adopt a resolution to establish an international independent investigative and accountability mechanism on Iran."

 

Iran Protests: Arrests of School Children Prompt Grave Fears of More Child Killings

Officials Paint Children as Enemies of the State, Claim They’re “Reforming” Kids

At Least 28 Children Killed Since September 16, Reports Tehran-based Group

October 13, 2022 – The arrests and interrogations of school children accused of joining nationwide protests in Iran and their detention in so-called “psychological centers” has raised fears of more child killings in the fourth week of protests that have been spreading across the country since September 16.

“Call this what it is: Kidnappings of children by a state that is stopping at nothing in its attempts to quell protests and terrify the people of Iran into submission,” said Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI).

“UNICEF, which has an office in Iran, should be tracking down these defenseless children and getting them back to their families,” said Ghaemi. “World governments should loudly call on Iranian officials to stop arbitrarily detaining children as well as adults for exercising their right to protest, as well as urge for the end of lethal force against protesters.”

“U.S. President Joe Biden and democratic allies at the UN should establish an urgent special session at the UN Human Rights Council to bring governments into a debate over the current violent crackdown and Iran’s ongoing human rights crisis,” he added.

At least 28 children are among the reported minimum number of 201 individuals killed since anti-state, nationwide protests erupted in the country in mid-September after the death of Mahsa Amini, 22, following her arrest by the morality police.

The number of 28 children was reported by the Tehran-based Association for the Protection of Children on October 10, which added that “the largest number” of deaths occurred in the province of Sistan and Baluchistan.”

On October 11, 2022, Education Minister Yousef Nouri told the Shargh daily that an unspecified number of children had been sent to reeducation camps after they were arrested allegedly for engaging in anti-state protests.

“We do not have students in prisons and those who have been detained are in psychological centers for discussions on reforming and educating them. Our expert friends are in charge of this, so the students can be returned to their schools,” Nouri said.

Reza Hadjipour, MP and spokesperson for the Education Committee of the parliament in an interview with Rokna news agency confirmed high school students are being detained but downplayed it by saying: “There are few students in detention, mainly those who are in contact with opposition networks abroad. Our friends have summoned them and are interrogating them now.”

The comments have caused fury in Iran, especially at school teachers and principals who’ve been accused of aiding intelligence and security agencies in detaining the kids.

“For the last time we warn high school principals in the city of Karaj to stop making schools security zones and not to continue sharing video footage from school cameras with security and intelligence agents,” said a statement by the Organization of Associations of Teachers on October 13.

“We have received names of those teachers and principals in schools, we will not publicize them for now,” added the statement. “We ask you to wake up and stop contributing to the bloodshed. Otherwise, we will publicize the names and pictures of these so-called teachers and principals.”

Iranian officials have not specified how many children have been arrested and have cut internet and phone access to the country to prevent information from reaching the outside world.

Information posted on social media indicates that children have been arrested in at least three cities: Karaj, Bandar Abbas, and Sanandaj, where Iranian authorities have been waging a lethal crackdown on protests there.

“Iranian officials operate with such impunity that they openly admit to child kidnappings without any fear of being held accountable for engaging in such monstrous actions,” said Ghaemi.

“We can’t look at the signing of a nuclear deal with Iran in isolation; efforts at nuclear nonproliferation are important, but what will flow from this specific deal is a significant release of funds that will only serve to increase the repressive capacity of the regime,” he added.

“Empowering the Islamic Republic by bolstering its economic capacity at a time when it is violently and unlawfully trying to crush peaceful public protest and dissent, including by arresting kids, is an effective interference in the country’s domestic affairs—it actively assists the government,” said Ghaemi.

Iran Protests: The Significance of Oil Workers’ Strike

Written byFarid Mahoutchi

13th October 2022

On Monday, workers at a petrochemical complex in Asaluyeh, southern Iran, went on strike. Their colleagues in the Abadan oil refinery also joined them on Tuesday. Four weeks into the major Iran protests, the oil and petrochemical workers’ strike is considered a turning point.

This is not the first time oil workers, mainly contract oil workers, have gone on strike. But previously, they staged protests and demanded their rights. Their demonstrations were quashed, and many deprived workers were arrested or laid off. Yet, Iranian oil workers joined the nationwide uprising and popular “regime change” demand.

Initially sparked due to the death of a 22-years-old Kurdish girl in police custody, Iran protests have now morphed into a revolution, with people demanding nothing less than regime change. Protests have persisted despite the regime’s heavy crackdown.

The first turning point of Iran’s uprising was Saturday’s protests, with students joining them. These protests happened a few days after the bloody crackdown on innocent prayers in Zahedan and after the regime’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei threatened Iranians while praising his oppressive forces.

Iran’s uprising experienced what many consider its second turning point when the contract oil workers began their strike for several reasons:

• Considered the regime’s main source of income, the oil industry’s shutdown or partial shutdown delivers a major blow to Iran’s ruling theocracy. In other words, workers control the regime’s most important economic lifeline.
• Iran’s workers are among the most oppressed and underprivileged sectors of society. The regime’s corruption and ineptitude have turned Iran’s society, and particularly the workers’ community, into a powder keg. Iran has nearly 15 million workers, who form a large part of the population with their families. Thus, workers joining the uprising seriously threaten the ruling theocracy.
• These workers have nothing to lose due to the regime’s corruption and plunder of their wealth. Their participation in the current uprising means protests have entered a new era.
• Iranian oil workers have their unions and are among the most organized sectors due to their history of defiance. Thus, they could more easily organize protests and strike, and the rapid spread of strikes is a testament to this fact.
• It is worth noting that during the last months of the Shah’s regime, the Iranian oil workers’ strike in 1979 delivered an irreparable blow to the regime. The international community did not sanction the Shah’s regime, yet the workers’ strike seriously damaged its economy.

In a nutshell, the strike by contract oil workers reaffirmed the Iranian people’s unwavering resolve to overthrow the ruling theocracy at any cost. The regime plunders the Iranian nation’s wealth to prolong its rule through the export of terrorism abroad and domestic oppression. The world community should increase its pressure on the regime and help Iranians achieve their rights.

World Day Against Death Penalty and Iranian Protesters’ Plight

Written byMehdi Oghbai

12th October 2022

October 10 marked the World Day Against the Death Penalty while the world’s top executioner per capita, Iran, witnessed anti-regime protests for the fourth consecutive week.

Since taking power in 1979, Iran’s ruling theocracy has been using executions to intimidate the vibrant and progressive society that has rejected mullahs’ backward thinking from day one.  The regime’s incessant use of capital punishment has earned it the first rank of executioner per capita. Hundreds of Iranians are sent to the gallows every year under different pretexts, mainly political dissidence.

The clerical regime never stopped executions during Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, who presented himself as a “moderate,” roughly 5,000 Iranians, including over 130 women, were hanged.

Since Ebrahim Raisi took over for Rouhani in 2021, there have been nearly 800 executions. The number should be more, given the regime’s secrecy in announcing executions. In other words, executions have seen a dramatic since Raisi became president.

This was no surprise to human rights defenders and the Iranian people, as Raisi’s dark record of human rights violations was common knowledge. In fact, the regime Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei pulled him out of the ballot box in a bid to use him as the bogeyman to terrorize Iran’s restive society.

 Raisi played a key role during the mass political executions in the 1980s. During the 1988 massacre of over 30,000 political prisoners across Iran, Raisi sat on Tehran’s so-called “Death Commission,” sealing the fate of tens of thousands of prisoners. Based on a fatwa by the regime’s then-supreme leader Ruhollah Khomeini, those commissions were tasked to identify and purge political dissidents, mainly supporters and members of Iran’s leading opposition group, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The 1988 massacre remained uninvestigated and unpunished, perpetuating what many observers believe is the “culture of impunity.” When Raisi became the regime’s president in 2021, Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard referred to this development as a “grim reminder that impunity reigns supreme in Iran.”

This impunity once again showed its evil face during the regime’s heavy crackdown on protesters throughout the last four weeks. The regime’s security forces are opening fire on protesters, and according to the reports tallied by the MEK, over 400 people have been murdered in cold blood during the recent onslaughts.

Besides, roughly 20,000 protesters have been detained, many facing the risk of being executed. Mostafa Salehi and the wrestling champion Navid Afkari were detained during the 2018 major protests and were hanged, despite an international outcry to save their lives.

It is crystal clear that Iran’s ruling theocracy, like any other dictatorship founded on human rights abuses, will never end its violence. These regimes know that without full-fledged oppression, including executions, they wouldn’t last a day.

Therefore, it would be a mirage to believe in an end to the violence employed by Iran’s clerical. The world community should end the naive thinking that dialogue would impact the regime’s cycle of violence. The only way to break this cycle is to recognize the right of all Iranians to self-defense against this brutal regime. The time has come for the international community to go beyond condemnations and take concrete actions to end the crisis of impunity in Iran.