The urban cost of war

SINCE the past several weeks, a war has been raging in the Gulf and Middle East region. While missiles, interceptors and drones are instruments of 21st-century warfare, a trait shared with conflicts in the last century is the grave impact on cities. Whether it is Tehran or Beirut, the brunt of the impact is borne by the urban population. Tens of thousands of residential buildings in Tehran have been partially or completely damaged. Cultural sites, university buildings and military and civilian institutional structures add to this estimate. There is limited information from Tel Aviv but multiple missile attacks by Iran have caused widespread destruction in the city and the wider region. Beirut, sadly home to several earlier conflicts, has reported the forced eviction of over a million residents on account of Israeli attacks. Cities in Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Oman and Turkiye have experienced infrastructural damage. With no ceasefire in sight, it is feared that even tougher times lie ahead.

Cities are a natural target of aggression by belligerent countries. The attacking forces intend to cause critical damage to the enemies’ decision-making apparatus. In Tehran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and some of his family members, Dr Ali Larijani and some of his family members, and many other high-ranking Iranian officials were martyred. Military command structures, communication channels, financial hubs and other important economic and strategic assets make cities vulnerable to war damage. As cities grow, military and civilian jurisdictions often overlap. In some cases, cities continue to re-zone, generating buffers to keep civilian locations away from military assets. But all too often, the conflict does not spare civilian sites, even those located at a distance. And sometimes passive military sites become a hazard for the urban population. The tragic Ojhri Camp incident in April 1988 is an example. An explosion at this ammunition depot caused rockets and projectiles to fly all over Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Over 90 people died; hundreds were believed to have been wounded, some with permanent injuries.

When at war, there are hardly any principles that belligerents abide by. One observes military planes carrying out air strikes on hospitals, clinics, universities, schools, elderly care facilities and other social infrastructure. Gaza’s tragic situation is a case in point. One of the densest settlements, Gaza saw almost all its social facilities targeted by Israel. The Minab school tragedy in Iran shows that small children can also become fodder in a reckless war. Some wars have seen military commanders use human shields and conduct their operations from civilian facilities where they take cover. As a result, innocent people become targets or are caught in the crossfire when belligerents attack each other. Sometimes even urban centres in states that are not engaged in war are affected as the predicament of the GCC countries shows; the flames of war can consume even those places not meant as direct targets. Had it not been for today’s superior air defence systems, the scale of damage in the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkiye may have been much larger.

Military structures, communication channels and financial hubs make cities vulnerable to war damage.

Wars challenge the principles of city planning and development. Almost all cities are planned and developed for peacetime conditions. Even a momentary interruption, in which war breaks out, questions such an approach. For instance, compact cities with a properly outlined morphology, grid-based and well-laid-out landscapes, streets and public congregation spaces, and solid social and physical infrastructure are desirable in the eyes of planners. But such cities are predictable targets during times of conflict. Convoluted and ambiguous layouts and invisible social and physical infrastructure is what war-zone habitats may require. The present war experience in the Middle East may give city planners and managers cause to consider an alternative approach if they are to ensure the safety of citizens and governance institutions.

Wars also end. Post-war redevelopment is an established area of expertise. Many cities across the world have been destroyed during conflicts. But once these conflicts ended, they bounced back, thanks to a scientifically steered process of redevelopment. During the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s, many cities saw extensive damage. Mostar, an idyllic town on the Neretva river, saw colossal destruction. It was a friendly urban settlement boasting a multicultural society and was a site of immense interest to architects, planners, engineers and other design professionals who focused on its heritage and conservation. Its most iconic landmark was the Stari Most bridge dating from the Ottoman era. The bridge, destroyed in 1993 by shelling, represented a unique architectural example. When the war ended, concerted efforts began to rebuild it. Active citizen participation accelerated the process. The restoration of other cultural artifacts was also prioritised. In 2004, the restored historic quarters of Mostar were inaugurated by a galaxy of international figures, led by then Prince Charles. It is hoped that Tehran will see similarly better times once the war ends.

The writer is an academic and researcher based in Karachi.

Published in Dawn, April 3rd, 2026

if you want to get more information about this news then click on below link

More Detail