Iran pollution crisis continues as the government takes action against an environmentalist. Esmail Kahrom, a veteran ecologist, faces a legal case for his comments on fuel quality. He said Iran could fix its high-pollution mazut fuel with the cost of 10 missiles. Kahrom explained that each missile costs about two million dollars. He argued that if officials cared about public health, they could spend money on cleaner fuel instead. He added that authorities refuse to do this because “their priorities lie elsewhere.”
Mazut is a low-quality fuel mixed into gasoline in Iran. It contains harmful substances and has contributed heavily to air pollution. Kahrom warned that mazut has sulfur levels seven times higher than global standards. Domestic gasoline quality is also poor, which makes the air pollution problem worse. Prosecutors also filed a case against the editor of the news site that published Kahrom’s interview. His comments angered state-affiliated media, who criticized him for focusing on the environment instead of national security.
Air pollution in Iran has grown worse in recent years. Experts link the crisis to aging infrastructure, poor fuel quality, and government inaction. Many people in cities have expressed frustration over the worsening air quality and health risks. Some officials argue that defense and security should come before environmental concerns. They believe that spending on fuel improvements is less important than military preparedness. Others note that ignoring pollution can have serious long-term health consequences for citizens.
Kahrom is not the first environmentalist to face pressure in Iran. Past warnings about water scarcity, energy problems, and deforestation were often dismissed. Experts say that without urgent action, the Iran pollution crisis could continue to harm public health. Citizens continue to demand better fuel standards and cleaner air. Experts emphasize that fixing the Iran pollution crisis requires prioritizing public health over other expenses. The Iran pollution crisis highlights the tension between environmental needs and government priorities. Many hope the legal case will not stop experts from speaking out about air quality and fuel standards.