Genetic Threats Rise Around Lake Urmia, Kalantari Warns + Video

Afshin Amirshahi, host of Rokna’s program “Rok,” opened the show by saying: Today we are joined by Mr. Isa Kalantari, a prominent politician and executive manager in Iran with a long and extensive background in agriculture, environmental protection, and national-level management. From 1988 to 2000, he served as Minister of Jihad-e-Agriculture, playing a crucial role in developing agricultural infrastructure, strengthening scientific research, and expanding education in the sector.

Mr. Kalantari also served as Vice President and Head of Iran’s Department of Environment during the twelfth government, simultaneously acting as Secretary of the Urmia Lake Restoration Headquarters. Academically, he holds a Bachelor’s degree in Agronomy and Plant Breeding from Urmia University, a Master’s in Crop Physiology from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and a PhD in Crop Physiology and Biochemistry from Iowa State University. His academic background aligns directly with the responsibilities he has undertaken, demonstrating the depth of his scientific insight in managing large-scale agricultural and environmental projects.

“If Urmia Lake is not revived, no government in Iran will survive!” he warned.

Amirshahi continued: There are many questions, but let’s start with Urmia Lake. You headed the Urmia Lake Restoration Headquarters. First, I want to know how much has been spent on reviving the lake. Reports indicate around $1.5 billion has been allocated, yet the lake continues to face severe challenges.

He added: Previously, you stated, “If Urmia Lake is not revived, no government in Iran will survive.” Could you clarify what you meant by this warning? What kind of political and security threats do you foresee in this crisis? You have also said, “Urmia Lake must be restored with its own basin water.” Dr. Javaheri had warned that the lake would dry up by 2016.

“Dr. Javaheri had warned that Lake Urmia would dry up by 2016.”

In response, Isa Kalantari said: Let me start a little earlier. In 1996, I had a water and soil consultant, Engineer Parham Javaheri (may he rest in peace), who lived in Shiraz and traveled to Tehran three days a week. One day he came with a note, saying: “If the ongoing projects in Urmia Lake continue and agricultural expansion proceeds, if dams are built and water resources are used for agriculture, the lake will be completely dry by 2016.”

“The Ministry of Energy went its own way and dried up Lake Urmia.”

Kalantari emphasized: I conveyed this warning to Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani and later to Mr. Mohammad Khatami. In 1998, a seminar was held at Sharif House. At that time, I was not responsible for the environment but for agricultural development, while water management was under the Ministry of Energy. In the seminar, discussions focused on what actions should be taken to prevent the lake from drying up. Proposals included banning second crop cultivation, halting development of new lands, and preventing conversion of rainfed lands to irrigated fields. However, in practice, the Ministry of Energy continued its path, dams were built, agricultural expansion proceeded, and as a result, Urmia Lake gradually dried up and now faces a deep crisis.

“A young woman told the President: We ask nothing from you, just return our lake to us.”

Kalantari continued: In 2013, during Hassan Rouhani’s presidential campaign in Urmia, a young girl said to him, “We do not ask anything from you as president, just return our lake to us.” At that time, the lake’s volume was only about 1.6–1.7 billion cubic meters, having lost nearly 90% of its water. Rouhani promised that the first government resolution would address Urmia Lake restoration, and it was implemented.

Kalantari further explained: Hamid Chitchian, then Minister of Energy, was appointed Secretary of the Urmia Lake Restoration Headquarters, with the First Vice President acting as its head, while Rouhani himself was considered the overall chair. Chitchian began the work but after four months told me, “I can either be Minister of Energy or Secretary of the Urmia Lake Headquarters; I cannot do both.” I told him that the first six months would be hard, but it would get easier afterward. Eventually, Rouhani instructed me to become Secretary of the headquarters, a role I accepted on the condition that no action would be taken without thorough study and analysis, as the project was not merely environmental but also economic, social, cultural, and political. Therefore, a single consulting company could not address all aspects.

“During Rouhani’s administration, 740 experts from Australia to the United States conducted research on Lake Urmia.”

Kalantari added: After initial studies, we chose Sharif University of Technology as the main research hub, collaborating with twelve other major Iranian universities and domestic and international consulting engineers. Overall, a group of approximately 730–740 experts was formed, including 70 foreign specialists from Australia, the U.S., Russia, the U.K., New Zealand, and Canada. They spent six months collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing information. The project did not require new research but rather the compilation, comparison, and analysis of existing data. Finally, on June 29, 2014, Sharif University presented 27 recommendations for Urmia Lake restoration, seven to eight of which were infrastructural, with the remainder being soft measures. The plan was approved, and work began. It should be noted that the Restoration Headquarters itself was not an executive body; implementation was carried out by relevant ministries and organizations.

USD 1.3 Billion Spent on Restoring Lake Urmia – 83% of Funds Went to the Ministry of Energy

In response to a question by Amirshahi (host of the “Rok” program) regarding the costs, Kalantari said: The figure of USD 1.5 billion that has been mentioned is approximately correct, although it may be slightly lower, around USD 1.3 to 1.4 billion. Of the total budget, 83% was allocated to the Ministry of Energy, 14% to the Ministry of Agriculture, 2% to the Department of Environment, and 1% to provincial governorates, consulting engineers, and the universities that conducted the studies.
The governorates were assigned to carry out cultural and educational programs, and the share of universities and consulting companies amounted to only three-tenths of one percent of the total budget as remuneration.
The work began, and if I were to go into detail, our interview time would be over. But in summary, we took charge of a lake with roughly 1.6 billion cubic meters of water that was on the brink of total desiccation. At a time when many experts and even the public believed its restoration was impossible, we managed to increase the lake’s water volume to approximately 4 billion cubic meters by 2021, and we handed it over in that state to the late President Raisi’s administration.

Local Governors Who Caused the Drying of Lake Urmia Were Appointed to Lead the Restoration Under Raisi

Kalantari stated that unfortunately, after the change of government, because the approved program was not followed, the restoration process stalled and effectively reversed. At that time, some of the local governors and officials who had themselves been among the contributors to the lake’s desiccation were appointed to lead the restoration efforts. Naturally, a governor focused on development, reducing unemployment, and boosting economic output cannot simultaneously restrict agriculture and preserve water for the lake.

Seven Million People Within 100 km of Lake Urmia Are at Risk of Dangerous Diseases

Kalantari stressed that for this reason, the restoration program essentially failed. Today, not even one cubic meter of water remains in the lake. This will have extremely dangerous consequences. I have said before: “If Lake Urmia dries up, governments in Iran will face a serious threat.”
Remember that during the Iran–Iraq War, we had around 900,000 war refugees who dispersed across cities such as Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz and other parts of the country, disrupting public order for a period. Now imagine that within a 100-kilometer radius around Lake Urmia, more than seven million people live. The lake’s desiccation puts them at risk of various diseases, respiratory pollution, genetic changes, and social crises.

Genetic Changes Are a New Threat for Residents Around the Desiccated Lake Urmia

Kalantari said that once the lakebed becomes completely dry, regional temperatures will shift dramatically. Even this year, the average temperature increase in the Lake Urmia basin, which covers 52,000 square kilometers, has risen noticeably compared to the past. Other provinces in Iran have experienced increases roughly 60% lower than those in East and West Azerbaijan.
This could lead to dangerous genetic consequences, the nature of which remains unclear. In our scientific models, we were unable to predict what genetic changes might occur in humans, animals, and the ecosystem if winters in the basin become three degrees colder and summers three degrees hotter. This, in my view, is the most dangerous aspect of the entire issue.
No scientific model in the world has yet been able to simulate such changes accurately. I even considered using my personal funds and artificial intelligence to pursue this matter, but I must say that producing reliable predictions is nearly impossible.

Spike in Hypertension in Tabriz and Increase in Skin Cancer in the Southwest of the Lake Due to Salt Storms

Rok program host: A few days ago, a large salt storm from the lake spread into surrounding areas.

Kalantari explained: In 2015, when the University of Tabriz was responsible for medical studies in this field, during one salt storm, the average blood pressure of residents in Tabriz increased by one-tenth of a unit. Additionally, the incidence of skin cancer in the southwest of the lake—particularly in the Sere-Salmas area—rose up to twentyfold in animals. These are factual, data-based reports; events that once seemed unimaginable.
Now the question is: Can the country bear the burden of 5 to 6 million climate migrants created by the lake’s destruction? The answer is obvious: No. Such a crisis would exceed the nation’s managerial and economic capacity.

Raisi Administration’s Water Policies Continue Under Pezeshkian – Four Billion Cubic Meters Have Evaporated

Kalantari said that unfortunately, the current situation remains alarming. The saline and water-management policies of the Raisi administration are being pursued almost unchanged under President Pezeshkian. As a result, around four billion cubic meters of water have evaporated from the lake, and its legal water rights have not been delivered.
I have always emphasised that Lake Urmia must be restored using the water within its own basin.

Transferring Water From the Caspian Sea to Lake Urmia Is Not Feasible

Kalantari said: You asked whether water can be transferred from the Caspian Sea or Turkey’s Lake Van. The answer is that, scientifically and chemically, such a plan is impossible.
The chemical composition of the Caspian Sea is incompatible with that of Lake Urmia; the Caspian contains sulphate salts, while Urmia contains chloride-sulphate salts, and the solubility of chloride is 85 times lower than sulphate. This means that even if USD 14 billion were spent to transfer Caspian water into Urmia, the moment it enters, sulphate sediments would cover the surface and turn it into a lifeless swamp.

Lake Van’s Water Was Compatible, but Turkey Withdrew From the Agreement

He added: Regarding water transfer from Lake Van, negotiations had taken place at one time, but Turkey later withdrew from the agreement. Although the water from Lake Van was chemically more compatible, the plan was abandoned for political and operational reasons.

The Root of Iran’s Water-Policy Deviation Lies in the 1983 Water Distribution Law

Rok host: Another question concerns the role of the Ministry of Energy. Is it true that “the survival or destruction of Lake Urmia largely depends on the Ministry of Energy’s policies”?

Kalantari replied: It is absolutely true. Unfortunately, the root of Iran’s deviation in water policy goes back to the Water Distribution Law of March 1983. In that law, the custodian and the exploiter of water became the same entity. The institution responsible for protecting water resources was also responsible for selling and exploiting them.
From that moment, water-resource protection was set aside. Had the Ministry of Energy fulfilled its true role over these years, water consumption in the country should not exceed 50 billion cubic meters. But today, consumption exceeds 95 billion cubic meters annually.
The reason is that all authority is concentrated in one individual—the Minister of Energy. Despite large annual budgets, the system is ineffective because a thousand decision-making bodies exist, and ultimately only about 50% of programs are implemented.
Since 1983, we have entrusted national water management to a single ministry, and that ministry must now answer why it has failed to safeguard water resources. When they say more water must be allocated to agriculture, the question is: Who issued such permission? The Ministry of Energy itself. And now it must not evade responsibility.
As a result, the country’s groundwater resources have almost collapsed.

Data Reporting Has Been Halted Since 2017

Kalantari noted: We had roughly 500 billion cubic meters of fossil water—water accumulated over hundreds of thousands of years, a mixture of saline and freshwater. Out of this amount, more than 220 billion cubic meters have been consumed and cannot be replenished.
Currently, the volume of water recharged into underground reservoirs is approximately 20 billion cubic meters, which was estimated at 19.5 billion cubic meters based on 2017 data. Since then, no official updated figures have been released.

Iran Withdraws 40–43 Billion Cubic Meters of Groundwater Annually; Soil Fertility Is Declining

Kalantari added that Iran withdraws approximately 40 to 43 billion cubic meters of groundwater each year. Such excessive extraction has caused hundreds of millions of tons of salt to rise from the depths and accumulate across roughly six million hectares of farmland. As a result, the soil has lost much of its fertility, and agricultural productivity has sharply declined.

The Ministry of Energy Owns Water Resources but Is Only Interested in Selling Water

Kalantari stressed that the bitter reality is that in Iran, water effectively has no guardian. The only institution ostensibly in charge is the Ministry of Energy—but the Ministry is solely focused on selling water.

Rok host: At present, one institution simultaneously controls allocation, sales, and protection of water resources—a structure that is completely bizarre, contradictory, and rife with conflicts of interest. The entity that is supposed to safeguard water resources is the very same entity that sells them and issues exploitation permits. Any specialist in this field will tell you the same. But the main question is: Why is this situation not corrected?

Kalantari explained: The answer is clear. First, many officials in the country fundamentally lack a proper understanding of this issue. Second, legally and structurally, the root of this crisis traces back to the 1983 Water Distribution Law. It is important to remember that this law was not a government bill—it was a proposal by members of the first parliament. That is, MPs who in some cases had no expertise in water policy replaced the national water law from the Pahlavi era.
Consultants and contractors in the water sector drafted this proposal and handed it to the MPs, who then passed it. According to the Constitution, legislative bills must be approved by the government and bear the signatures of the President and the relevant minister. If the minister concerned does not sign, the bill cannot even be reviewed by parliament.
Meanwhile, MPs’ proposals may only be considered if they impose no financial burden. But in this case, none of these conditions were observed.
As a result, a law that should have been the foundational water-policy framework of the country was enacted with fundamental weaknesses and no expert foundation.

In 44 Years, No Minister of Energy Has Been Asked Why Groundwater Levels Are Constantly Declining

He emphasised: The consequence is that today, no Minister of Energy is willing to relinquish his powers. To resolve this crisis, the Supreme Leader, the President, and the parliament must reach a unified decision so that these powers are removed from the Minister of Energy, who today both sells water and fails to carry out his protective duties.
In 44 years, not once has a Minister of Energy been questioned as to why groundwater levels in the country keep decreasing. During this period, the historical qanats of Yazd, Isfahan, and Tehran have dried up one after another, and land subsidence has occurred in many regions—yet no supervisory body has held the Minister of Energy accountable.

The Ministry of Energy extracts 40 percent more than the permitted limit and, in fact, twice the actual capacity of the country’s groundwater resources.

Kalantari said: “The reason is clear. Instead of safeguarding water resources, the Minister of Energy has built dams, pumped water, and sold it, while he should have supervised consumption and imposed restrictions. According to estimates, the Ministry of Energy should have issued a maximum of 10 billion cubic meters of extraction permits for groundwater, but now more than 200 percent of the capacity is being extracted. This means 40 percent more than the authorized limit and, in fact, twice the actual capacity of the country’s groundwater resources is being withdrawn. This is precisely the process that has pushed the country into its current crisis.”

Kalantari: The Judiciary must explain why it has failed to act!

Issa Kalantari said: “In reality, the Judiciary has shown neglect. Daily matters are far more important to them than long-term and vital issues. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, unfortunately, long-term planning has been sacrificed to short-term and political considerations.”

How was a decision made to build a causeway through the middle of Lake Urmia during wartime?

The host of the Rok program stated: “Regarding Lake Urmia, one of the major mistakes was constructing the causeway through the middle of the lake. The question is: how did the country’s governance system reach such a conclusion?”

In response, Kalantari said: “In the midst of the imposed war, when the country was in a state of crisis, a decision was made to build a road through the middle of the lake. Now, if we want to judge a decision made 45 years ago, we must also consider the circumstances of that time. At that point, the city of Urmia had lost its land connections from both the north and the south. There was no overpass and no road to maintain connectivity between different parts of the city. A city of around 700,000 to 800,000 people was practically surrounded by the lake with severely limited access routes. Therefore, the decision was made at the time to construct the Urmia Lake causeway—though its initial studies had been conducted before the Revolution, the project had not been properly implemented.”

The Urmia causeway contributed only about 3 percent to the lake’s drying; the real issue was the violation of the lake’s water rights

Kalantari continued: “According to studies conducted by Danish consulting engineers, who were the project’s lead consultants, the construction of the causeway contributed only about 3 percent to the drying of the lake. Those same consultants had recommended the construction of a second bridge three kilometers west of the current road to maintain the natural flow of water. They stated that with the second bridge, the destructive impact of the causeway would decrease from 3 percent to less than 0.7 percent.

“Therefore, based on those international studies, 99 percent of the causes of Lake Urmia’s drying were unrelated to the causeway. Instead, they resulted from a 12 percent decline in regional precipitation and an 87 percent reduction caused by human encroachment on the lake’s water rights — namely dam construction, pumping stations, excessive agricultural expansion, and urban growth. In effect, instead of allowing freshwater to flow into the lake, we diverted it for human consumption and agriculture. The reason for this was a lack of environmental awareness and understanding.”

Lack of attention to sustainable development and the true importance of the environment in successive governments

Emphasizing that the concept of “sustainable development” had not yet been adopted in the country and that no administration truly understood the significance of environmental protection, Kalantari added: “Even today, when we say that at least 130 cubic meters per second of water must reach the Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab) from the Karun, some ask: ‘Why should we let freshwater flow into the sea?’ While this is the natural right of the environment. We have never valued the environment. We have never viewed lakes, wetlands, and rivers as living systems; instead, we have seen them as resources for economic exploitation. Our knowledge and understanding of ecology were extremely limited. For example, we assumed that if a lake was salty, its drying would not matter because ‘salty water is useless anyway.’”

Kalantari again warned about the severe impacts of salt dust and said: “No one explained what role this salty water plays in regulating temperature, preventing salt-laden dust storms, preserving biodiversity, and preventing genetic changes in the human population. One of the dangerous consequences of the lake’s drying is the rise of salt dust from the parched lakebed, which has a direct impact on public health. As I said, back in 2015, when the lake still held around two billion cubic meters of water, official reports from Tabriz University of Medical Sciences showed that the average blood pressure of Tabriz residents had risen by one-tenth of a bar. This was only one sign of the lake’s drying on public health. At that time, I warned that if this trend continued, life around Lake Urmia would become uninhabitable. Now the effects of this crisis are evident; residents of surrounding areas have gradually begun to migrate because they can no longer withstand the salt dust and climatic changes.”

The host of the Rok program said: “Yet one major question remains: how is it possible that during these 45 years, the environment had no real place in the country’s major decision-making processes? While almost the entire land of Iran is under environmental stress—from forests and rangelands to wetlands and surface waters—no one takes the environment seriously. Many of the country’s wetlands are either completely dried up or on the verge of destruction. While wetlands are the lungs of the land, we have ignored them for years.”

Parliament declared that the term “sustainable development” is Western and should not be included in the country's planning framework.

Issa Kalantari responded: “The root of the issue is clear: our level of understanding is low! We policymakers simply lack sufficient insight—not out of malice, but because the environment was viewed as an additional cost, a form of ‘wasted money.’ I remember when I was Minister of Agriculture and also in charge of water development and environmental affairs, we argued that the country’s development must be sustainable. At that time, Parliament spent hours debating what the term ‘sustainable development’ even meant and why it should appear in national planning. Some representatives said this word was Western and should not enter the country’s planning literature! While sustainable development is based on four fundamental principles which clearly state that every activity, even security-related activities, must be sustainable economically, socially, environmentally, and institutionally.”

Issa Kalantari explained: “In the definition of ‘sustainable development,’ there are four essential principles that any society seeking to preserve its future must adhere to. The first principle states that every activity—from economics and education to culture and sports—must have economic justification. Even if an activity has security or social objectives, it must still be economically rational in order to be sustainable. The second principle of sustainable development is that no activity should disrupt social order on a large scale. Development that leads to chaos, inequality, or disorder is not development. The third principle states that the environment must be preserved. Any development project that destroys natural resources, causes pollution, or damages ecosystems is essentially anti-development. And the fourth principle is that no development should deprive future generations of their rights. We have no right to consume resources that belong to our children and grandchildren solely for our own present comfort. All these principles are obvious and reasonable, but the reality is that in Iran, neither in the past nor today, have these principles been genuinely accepted in practice. Even now, we witness unsustainable development—progress that has no environmental or social foundation and therefore will not endure.”

Forty volumes of studies on agricultural development in Iran existed before the Revolution!

The host of the Rok program said: “To put your remarks differently, our system of governance has been weak in this regard. We had managers lacking holistic and intergenerational perspectives. Decision-making was short-term, and planning was more political or promotional than scientific. But another part of this weakness stems from our disconnection from the world. When a country lacks scientific and technical engagement with the international community, it cannot benefit from global experience. In many countries, governments attract top international experts for major environmental projects, establish joint research institutions, define large-scale studies, and use the experiences of others. How damaging has this situation been for us?”

In response, Issa Kalantari said: “After the Revolution, we became isolated in these areas, and our scientific connection with the world became extremely limited. During the Pahlavi era—despite all the criticisms that may be made—the goal was self-sufficiency in agriculture and economic development. In the late 1960s, when the Shah ordered that the country must become self-sufficient in agriculture, the Plan Organization said: ‘We do not have sufficient research capacity to assess the impacts of this policy.’ Therefore, three French consulting engineering companies and two American firms were invited to study the issue. These companies were Setiran, Boussac, and Hunting. Their studies, still held by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Plan Organization, were extremely detailed and comprehensive—around 30 to 40 volumes of research reports produced over three years of continuous work by both domestic and international teams.”

Kalantari explained the conclusion of those studies as follows: “The result showed that with its available water resources, Iran can sustainably achieve self-sufficiency in grain production and animal protein only for a population of about 50 million people. In reality, the country can be self-sufficient for two to five years, but not permanently; water resources must remain renewable and be consumed at sustainable levels. This report was prepared in 1973 and is still held by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Plan Organization.”

Between 1980 and 1983, under the Saber Plan, we ploughed the slopes of all the mountains—and the topsoil was washed away

Kalantari, noting that sanctions and the inability to engage with the world changed the country’s approach entirely, said: “Due to the breakdown in relations with the United States, the embassy incident in 1979, sanctions, and the difficulties of importing essential goods, the official policy of the system became: ‘We must achieve self-sufficiency in wheat and essential products under any circumstances and with any population size.’ This policy gradually destroyed the country’s water resources. When water disappeared, vegetation vanished, and consequently, animal resources also collapsed. A clear example is the Zagros forests. Today, these forests are dying, and almost no response is seen from officials. But what is the root of this disaster? The main reason is that between 1980 and 1983, projects known as the ‘Saber Plans’ were implemented to achieve wheat self-sufficiency. Under these plans, all sloped lands were ordered to be ploughed to be put under cultivation. What was the result? When the mountain slopes were ploughed, the topsoil washed away. In Iran’s foothill regions, the soil depth is usually three to four centimeters—a very thin layer resting on bedrock that retains rainfall and keeps the Zagros vegetation alive. But once the soil was ploughed, wind and rain carried away those three or four centimeters. That soil either accumulated behind dams, settled in valleys, or eventually washed into the sea. What remained were bare, lifeless rocky mountains with no capacity to hold water or support vegetation. Unfortunately, we have never been willing to recognize these principles in our decision-making.”

We assumed that ploughing all the slopes and planting wheat would save the country

Kalantari, noting that the cracks within the rocks served as channels for oak tree roots and that the small amount of soil remaining on slopes played a vital role in moisture retention, added: “But when we lost the soil, we lost the very foundation of life in the oak forests. Trees that had survived for thousands of years and had reached equilibrium with the climate and even their own diseases—such as charcoal disease—became weakened and were no longer able to resist. The result was that tens of thousands of hectares of Zagros forests dried up annually, and this destructive trend still continues. All of this stemmed from a misguided policy—a policy that regarded ‘self-sufficiency’ as a virtue without understanding its cost. We thought that if we ploughed all the slopes and planted wheat, the country would be saved. Yet we achieved neither desirable yields nor preservation of the land. In the 1980s, the area affected by the ‘Sunn’ wheat pest jumped from 50,000 hectares in 1976 to 2.3 million hectares in 1983. The reason was simple: we expanded the pest’s habitat into the mountains. We planted wheat, but because the cultivation was economically unviable, the fields were abandoned, becoming food sources for pests. The ‘Sunn’ pest, which previously died in winter due to cold temperatures, now survived in the mountains with abundant food. Ultimately, we were forced to combat pests across three million hectares of infested land using pesticides so strong they even killed crows. This was the result of misguided policymaking—a consequence of ignoring the very warnings that appeared in the 1973 studies.”

I also made mistakes at the beginning of my tenure, but by 1990 I understood and announced that self-sufficiency was not in the country’s best interests

The host of the Rok program asked: “The studies you mentioned—the American studies—existed during your period of leadership as well. Did you make use of them, or did you also initially not believe in utilizing them and later experienced a change in thinking?”

FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION (Exact, Formal, No Additions or Deletions)

Isa Kalantari said: “In the beginning, I made mistakes just like many others. Until 1989, I continued moving along the path of self-sufficiency. But from 1990 onward, I stopped. I realized that if ‘self-sufficiency’ is not aligned with sustainable development, it is not only not beneficial to the country, but harmful. Let me give a historical example. In the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, only twenty minutes remained until the outbreak of a nuclear war, yet in that same year, the Soviet Union imported 40% of its grains from the United States. This means that even two superpowers on the brink of nuclear conflict did not abandon food trade with each other, because they understood that absolute self-sufficiency is not correct.”

Today, the concept of self-sufficiency does not mean producing essential goods domestically.

Kalantari emphasized: “The fundamental issue is ‘national wealth,’ not ‘wheat production.’ If a country has wealth, it can always purchase grain. I understood this in 1989 and 1990. From that time onward, I said that we cannot destroy the country’s water and soil resources in the name of self-sufficiency. Today, the definition of self-sufficiency must change. Self-sufficiency has meaning only for products that do not have a global market—such as onions, cucumbers, or tomatoes—because you cannot easily replace them in the global market. But grains and sugar can be purchased, provided that there is money and national wealth.”

Our definitions still belong to the early 20th century / Food security is the money in people’s pockets

Kalantari said: “I remember in 1989, in Khuzestan, watermelon exports were blocked because it was the month of Ramadan. At the same time, in Tehran, four people were killed in the wholesale market over watermelon. This shows that our food policy was based on a flawed understanding of what constitutes an ‘essential good.’ Today, ‘essential goods’ are no longer ‘bread and wheat,’ but rather ‘wealth creation,’ because without wealth, no essential goods can be secured. If we want to open the discussion on wealth creation and link it to sustainable development and the preservation of natural resources, we must first look at our own economic reality. We are poor, and we do not have enough money to import essential goods from the global market. Over the past hundred years, any country with adequate financial resources has been able to manage its food supply. North Korea is an example of a country that faces crisis due to lack of financial resources.”

Continuing, Kalantari stressed that “our definitions still belong to the early 20th century,” and added: “Many of our policymakers still say that ‘wheat and sugar are essential goods and producing them ensures food security.’ But the reality is that today, food security is no longer tied only to the availability of goods; it is tied to people’s purchasing power and the country’s ability to generate wealth. From Maku to Chabahar, shops are full of food items, but six income deciles in our society suffer from malnutrition—not because goods do not exist, but because people do not have enough money to buy them. For example, the country annually imports about 13 to 14 billion dollars’ worth of goods: corn, meal, sugar, rice, and other products. But because financial resources are limited, it is impossible to fully meet all needs, and these limitations force policies to remain short-term and without a view to the future.”

“I thought about resigning many times, but political conditions and financial constraints did not allow it.”

The host of the Rok program asked: “I ask this because you held responsibility for forty years, and during your tenure as minister, the idea of self-sufficiency was still being pursued. I want to ask: under these circumstances, did you ever threaten to resign or deliver a fiery speech? Did you ever say, for example: ‘If a certain decision is not made, I will oppose it’?”

Kalantari replied: “Look, I thought about resigning many times, but political conditions and financial constraints did not allow it.”

The host continued: “You were an adviser to Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. Why did they not pay attention to your perspectives and observations?”

Kalantari said: “Governments were under political pressure and lacked sufficient foreign exchange revenues; even for importing an additional two to three billion dollars of food, financial resources were limited. This caused long-term thinking to be set aside. One clear example is the year 1993, the second term of Mr. Hashemi’s presidency. I proposed that I be transferred to the Department of Environment and someone else be appointed as Minister of Agriculture. At first they agreed, but then they changed their minds and said: ‘If you leave, the next person will not repeat these points, and the situation will get worse.’ I remember that at the beginning of Mr. Hashemi’s presidency, in 1989–1990, he did not believe that the country’s groundwater resources were being depleted. I held several meetings—one for an hour and a half, and another on a Friday for three and a half hours. Eventually, I managed to convince him that groundwater resources were being exhausted, and the Ministry of Energy was prevented from issuing illegal well permits.”

From 1994 onward, I suspended second cropping in provinces dependent on groundwater

Kalantari emphasized: “Beginning in 1994, at the Ministry of Agriculture, I suspended second cropping in provinces that relied on groundwater. This was not in fact my responsibility, because I am a water consumer—just like a housewife who must have sufficient water for household needs. Protecting water resources and the environment is the duty of the Minister of Energy and the head of the Environmental Protection Organization. If these individuals do not fulfill their responsibilities, even if I am the minister, I cannot manage water resources. Even today, if someone tells me: ‘Instead of 40 billion cubic meters, extract 80 billion cubic meters of groundwater,’ I would be pleased—because I am a consumer, and the duty to protect and ensure water sustainability lies with others.”

Without investment, polluted air will always persist

Kalantari stressed: “The consequences of these policies can also be seen in the country’s domestic management. When a country is under political and economic siege, long-term planning becomes limited, and many policies and decisions become short-term and crisis-driven. This is evident in environmental management and food production: lack of sufficient investment, continuation of raw material exports, declining production quality, and rising pollution levels. For example, the situation of pollutants in major cities is illustrative. In the second half of the year, most pollution is domestic; in the first half, a combination of domestic and external sources contributes to the problem. In major cities, more than 80% of pollution comes from vehicles. But the problem is that we cannot modernize the automotive industry because, first, the required technology is not accessible, and second, updating the automotive sector domestically costs at least ten billion dollars. For example, a carburetor motorcycle in winter conditions produces as much pollution as six Peugeot cars. Out of roughly eleven million motorcycles in the country, nine million are carburetor models. If we combine this pollution with that of cars, it is equivalent to fifty-four million additional vehicles in cities. Another problem is the inability to produce standard fuel and the lack of investment in refineries and power plants. When these investments are not made, polluted air in cities will always persist. Fortunately, if we want to control air pollution, it is possible and, with proper investment, can be addressed within three days. But water and soil are not like that—the restoration of water and soil resources requires years of time and substantial investment.”

The host of the Rok program continued: “It must be acknowledged that many opportunities to rebuild relations and engage in dialogue with the world were unfortunately lost. There was potential for reconciliation and interaction, but the foundations of dialogue were either not formed or were pursued with delay and hesitation. When national interests are not the priority in decision-making, opportunities are wasted; egos, factional considerations, and short-term political goals overshadow strategic and national priorities.”

Kalantari said in this regard: “When national interests do not hold their proper place, policies are often implemented against national interests. When national interests are not the priority in decision-making, opportunities are wasted; factional and short-term considerations overshadow strategic and national priorities. This weakness in accountability lies with policymakers, government leaders, and other institutions, because in many cases, short-term and local interests have been prioritized over long-term national interests. The result is clear: increasing poverty, weakening natural and social capital, and the decline of the state’s ability to ensure public welfare.”

Poverty will cause us to lose Isfahan / A 20-centimeter drop per year means Isfahan will sink 20 meters in six years

Rokna Program Host: Let me ask you an environmental question from the perspective of poverty. Could the drilling of more than 55,000 wells along the Zayandeh Rood and the water consumption in agriculture be a consequence of poverty?

Isa Kalantari replied: Yes, to a large extent. When a farmer and his family are under economic pressure and poverty, they inevitably resort to extracting water resources in order to maintain their income. But solutions do exist. If national interests take precedence, policies can be designed to guide farmers toward alternative livelihoods, provide financial and insurance support, and reduce incentives for over-extraction through appropriate economic mechanisms. Poverty is causing us to lose Isfahan. When the interests of Isfahan — a national cultural, historical, and economic asset — are ignored, national interests are undermined as well. Poverty and economic pressure on farmers and water users lead to excessive extraction from groundwater aquifers, putting cities and national heritage at risk in the long term. The decline in groundwater levels in recent years, land subsidence, and damage to Isfahan’s historical buildings and structures are warning signs.

When we forget the interests of Isfahan, national interests also evaporate. Poverty is causing us to lose Isfahan — and we are indeed losing it. An Isfahan that subsides 20 centimeters per year means that if this trend continues, over thirty years it will sink nearly 30 percent, or tangibly up to six meters; everything will be lost. Why? Because one billion and one hundred million cubic meters of water are being extracted not from the Zayandeh Rood, but from Greater Isfahan’s basin, only to be horrifically evaporated. For what? For producing 200 million dollars’ worth of agricultural output. This is the so-called national interest that does not align with reality.

Kalantari continued: “Alternative employment must be created; all of these measures are necessary. At the same time, protecting the environment and ensuring the survival of Isfahan is essential. Agriculture can be transformed — for example, shifting to forage-based cultivation, expanding rangelands, and increasing wildlife habitats so that dust storms decrease and the region’s ecological capacity is preserved.”

Rokna Program Host: With this same outlook, water transfer projects have now been defined for cities such as Yazd, Kashan, Delijan, Ardestan, Natanz, and Naein, and in practice we will face the same catastrophic fate you describe.

Isa Kalantari emphasized: When national interests are not prioritized, all these problems emerge.

The situation of the Zayandeh Rood has become worse than Lake Urmia

Rokna Program Host: What is your assessment of the Zayandeh Rood? A river that was once full has now reached this condition due to illegal extraction, disorderly management, the installation of thousands of smart meters without adherence to regulations, repeated unfulfilled promises, and irregular, unplanned development. The roughly 200 million cubic meters once considered as joint water rights have already affected subsidence levels and numerous historical heritage sites. What is your view?

Isa Kalantari stated: The main factor behind the decline of groundwater in the Isfahan basin is the Zayandeh Rood itself. When the river dries up and we pump water from beneath Isfahan’s surface, this is a double injustice to the land of Isfahan. I have conducted studies: during the Safavid era, the Zayandeh Rood carried about 700 million cubic meters per year, of which even Gavkhouni consumed only a small portion. Of that 700 million cubic meters, roughly 300 to 400 million cubic meters could meet the needs of that time, given the lower population and limited development. Today’s problem in Isfahan cannot be solved with water transfer, because that historical 700 million cubic meters has now risen to one to one-and-a-half billion cubic meters due to the transfers — and these transfers have caused the same problem that occurred with Lake Urmia, meaning the situation has worsened. Therefore, the solution is consumption control; the Zayandeh Rood must flow again, and we must stop draining the stored groundwater. Current agriculture is destroying underground water resources; annually about one to one-and-a-half billion cubic meters of water leave the basin, while even in the best rainfall years, the recharge of groundwater in Isfahan is about 100 million cubic meters. In other words, the river is being dried up while over-extraction continues, and the problem steadily intensifies.

Agriculture and development must be restricted in Isfahan

He stressed: To solve Isfahan’s problem, agriculture must be severely restricted, and in its place greenhouse cultivation and low-water-use methods should be expanded. Urban development in Isfahan must also be limited; the city can no longer support any new water-dependent growth. Historically, during the era of Shah Abbas, Isfahan’s population was about 300,000. If each person consumed 100 cubic meters annually, that amounted to 30 million cubic meters. Today, the region’s population has reached about five million people, and drinking and sanitation needs have increased to about 500 million cubic meters. This trend is unsustainable. Therefore, consumption must be reduced from somewhere — and that “somewhere” is agriculture. If Isfahan’s agricultural sector extracts about 1.2 billion cubic meters, at least one billion cubic meters of this must be eliminated. Significant new water transfers to this basin are no longer possible. Investment should be directed toward industries that consume little water or move toward waterless technologies; we should not simply continue building more steel factories. While agriculture must be preserved, farmers can be employed on five to six thousand hectares of greenhouses, which would also increase their income.

When faced with difficult issues, we erase the question instead of solving it

Kalantari said: Unfortunately, when we face difficult issues, we tend to erase the problem entirely; in areas where the work becomes challenging, there is a tendency in Iran to avoid the problem. Instead of implementing the difficult but effective solution, we enter into conflict. In the past, before tractors existed, land was plowed using oxen; but today we need principled and sustainable solutions to address this crisis.

Instead of creating wealth, we only distribute it / Inequality in Iran has surpassed India and Brazil

Kalantari continued: “Our situation has become such that whenever we face difficult subjects, we run from them; we run from sustainable development, we run from wealth creation, and instead ignite battles over wealth distribution. We must create wealth and then distribute it fairly — not allow major rent-seekers and deep class divides to destroy the country. Today, income inequality in Iran has reached a point that even surpasses countries like India and Brazil. Previously, India and Brazil were known for having 90 to 95 percent of wealth concentrated in the hands of two percent of the population; we are now approaching that point. Even households in the seventh decile and above are facing hunger, food shortages, and falling below the poverty line, while a small minority has become extremely wealthy — rent-seekers who are part of the state apparatus. This situation is unsustainable.”

Restricting agriculture is costly — and we must accept and pay that cost

Rokna Program Host: Limiting agriculture is one of the solutions that can help. But can it be implemented in places like Urmia and Isfahan?

Isa Kalantari responded: Such decisions must be made because the population is large, and migration and social unrest are likely. When we say implementing such changes is costly, this is exactly what it means. It is expensive, and governments must accept those costs — costs that, if not paid today, will be far greater tomorrow. When dealing with difficult issues, we often bypass the core problem; instead of acting where the cost is high and the issue can truly be resolved, we start with peripheral and easier matters, and in the end none of the main problems are solved. Employment creation is also in a critical condition. Our capacity to generate wealth is insufficient; foreign investment is not attracted, and domestic capital is inadequate. It is estimated that creating one job in the modern industrial sector requires about 250,000 dollars of investment; meaning that creating one million jobs would require about 250 billion dollars of investment. If we aim to employ four million people in the modern industrial sector, we would need roughly one trillion dollars — a figure entirely out of reach.

“The total net foreign capital inflow into the country since the Islamic Revolution has not even reached thirty billion dollars.”

Isa Kalantari declared: the total net foreign investment entering the country since the beginning of the Revolution has not even reached thirty billion dollars; the net figure is far lower than that. Such negligible investment is not sufficient for the country’s current population, which is nearly three times larger than it was then. Therefore, we must create productive employment for this population — not brokerage-based or fast-yielding jobs that merely fuel inflation and produce no stability. To change this situation, we must establish relations with the world and reform our foreign policy. We cannot remain in conflict with the international community; the costs we have already paid in military confrontations demonstrate this clearly.

Nearly nine million hectares of irrigated farmland exist in the country

In his interview with Rok, Isa Kalantari continued: we have concealed unemployment in the country and it is inevitable that employment in the agricultural sector be reduced. Nearly nine million hectares of irrigated farmland exist nationwide; around 4.5 million landholders and approximately 5 million laborers are employed in this sector — a population of roughly 9.5 million people. In my view, this number must be fundamentally adjusted; the optimal number of employees in agriculture should not be this high, but rather reduced to around one and a half million. For years, we have entered this domain in an imbalanced and command-driven manner; agriculture, due to artificial currency rates and improper pricing policies, has remained the cheapest field for employment, attracting large numbers of people at tremendous social and environmental cost.

Kalantari recounts the case of the environmental activists who were accused of espionage

The host of the “Rok” program said: let us talk about a case that was controversial for years — the case of the “environmental activists” who were arrested on charges of espionage and some of whom were later released: Morad Tahbaz, Sam Rajabi, Amirhossein Khaleghi, Hooman Jokar, Sepideh Kashani, Niloufar Bayani, Tariq Qadirian, Abdolreza Kouhpaye, and the late Kavous Seyed-Emami. What really happened?

Isa Kalantari responded: under President Rouhani’s administration, four ministers were tasked with reviewing their case — the Minister of Intelligence, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Interior, and another minister. After three months of investigation, they concluded that these individuals had committed no crime. Nevertheless, they were arrested and imprisoned. If anyone believes in heaven and hell, they must understand that a grave injustice was done to these people.

I wrote a letter in Ebrahim Raisi’s office, and after that the death sentences of the environmental activists were reduced to prison terms

Kalantari stated: I had not met these individuals myself; I had only met the mother of Mr. Jokar. But when I saw that several of them were about to be executed, I personally went to meet Mr. Raisi. I said: “Mr. Raisi, you are the head of the judiciary. How can you sign death sentences for people you do not know?” He said: “Do you mean they are innocent?” I replied: “I am not saying it — the report of the four Rouhani-era ministers says they are innocent.” He said: “Write a letter.” Right there in his office, I sat down and wrote a handwritten letter. After that, the executions were halted and their sentences were reduced to several years in prison. It was for this reason that I voted for Mr. Raisi in the 2021 election, even though I did not agree with him on economic or political matters.

Regarding the accusations, it had been claimed that these individuals had engaged in espionage; for instance, it was alleged that they had installed cameras in the Turan Protected Area that captured images of the Shahroud missile facility. Yet the distance between Turan and Shahroud is roughly 70 kilometers, with several mountain ranges in between. The cameras used for tracking cheetahs had a range of no more than 18 to 25 meters — they could not detect a camel from that distance, let alone a missile.

As for Kaveh Madani, I must say that he was one of the country’s most skilled and motivated environmental specialists. But some people could not tolerate his presence in Iran and he was forced to leave the country. Kaveh Madani was the youngest professor in the history of Cambridge University, and later worked with the United Nations in the fields of environment and water. I myself invited him to become deputy head of the Environmental Protection Organization, and he accepted with enthusiasm.

Yet from the moment he arrived at the airport, he was detained for several hours. I sent the chief of staff of the environment office and the head of security to follow up. When I saw they were not releasing him, I contacted the Minister of Intelligence at the time. He said: “Our people are not the ones who detained him.” But later we learned that his laptop and cameras were confiscated and all his files downloaded. A few irrelevant photographs were also taken from them.

All these events revealed how misunderstanding, unscientific approaches, and political decisions can destroy the lives of a generation of devoted environmental activists — people who loved nature but became victims of distrust and a securitized environment.

The state and successive governments do not, in practice, recognize the environment; we make many promises in words

The host of “Rok” continued: I want to discuss with you the structure of the Environmental Protection Organization, because much of the country’s environmental problems stem from the institution’s structure and position. The question is: how independent and effective is its executive authority? What is the state of its financial resources and personnel? Is there coordination between institutions? To what extent do the existing laws and social conditions allow the organization to act? Are fundamental structural changes needed? And when the head of the organization remains silent on certain issues, is it due to higher expectations, or is it because they know they lack the authority to act?

Explaining these conditions, Isa Kalantari said: in my view, the main problem of the country’s environmental sector is not the shortage of new laws; our laws exceed what is actually enforced. The problem is that the state and government, in practice, do not accept the matrix of sustainable development. When the Game and Fish Department became the Environmental Protection Organization, it coincided with the early adoption of sustainable development at the international level. Yet we still have not seriously embraced it. I recall that during my student years, I saw an example of dam removal in Tennessee due to its destructive environmental effects, as the mixture of water and the local ecosystem lacked the conditions necessary for the natural reproduction of certain species. Unfortunately, none of our dams have comprehensive environmental studies, and this negligence has led to the drying of wetlands, lakes, and rivers.

He added: the state and successive governments do not, in practice, recognize the environment; we make many promises in words, especially to appeal to public opinion, the youth, and Generation Z, but we do not implement them. If the Environmental Protection Organization were to fully carry out its legal responsibilities, then a wide range of economic and transportation structures in the country would have to change: about fifty percent of the country’s power plants would need to be shut down, both major automakers halted, fifty percent of trucks and buses and seventy percent of urban vehicles scrapped, and ninety percent of aging motorcycles controlled or removed. Who dares to take such actions? When the traffic police openly state that they cannot stop motorcycles in winter, it is clear that enforcement of environmental regulations faces broad limitations.

Isa Kalantari emphasized: when I ordered four power plants to shut down in winter — because in winter, due to the use of mazut, these plants are major contributors to air pollution — I encountered resistance. The Minister of Energy came under pressure, and the judiciary said that power plants should not be shut down due to electricity shortages; in some cases, it even led to legal disputes. This shows that when environmental laws are to be enforced, neither the government nor other institutions provide the necessary support; we speak a lot in words but avoid costly actions and focus on secondary issues. Until a national will exists, the structure of the Environmental Protection Organization, however reformed, will not possess real effectiveness.

I issued orders, but the decisions of the Supreme National Security Council neutralized them

Kalantari continued: in the Tehran region alone, around six hundred thousand motorcycles still use carburetors; these people are family breadwinners, and they cannot be immediately replaced. On the other hand, when “clean air” is discussed, they prosecute me — even Mr. Zanganeh and Dr. Ardakanian were charged with neglect for causing pollution. I told the judge that what he had written did not reflect reality. I ordered that automakers be stopped, and that polluting power plants burning mazut be shut down, but higher-level decisions, including those of the Supreme National Security Council, which supersedes my authority, nullified my directives. As long as the state and upper structures do not believe in the environment, no effective action will be taken.

He said: we must accept that certain impositions have come from above — polluted air was imposed, water scarcity was imposed, and whenever authorities remember to make an environmental gesture, they take no real action. Regarding Lake Urmia as well, we face the same pattern: the governor of West Azerbaijan and some local officials constantly make statements about water consumption, yet the secretary of the Lake Restoration Headquarters, who should block unsuitable water from entering the lake, actually prevents water from being brought from other sources. Such behavior is essentially a manipulation of public trust.

Kalantari stressed: our environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, are good laws, but they were written for countries with far higher per-capita incomes than ours. These “Scandinavian-style” laws cannot be fully applied in a country with a per-capita income of only four or five thousand dollars; they were designed for societies with per-capita incomes of fifty to fifty-five thousand dollars. If we wish to fully enforce the Clean Air Act in Iran, we must accept fundamental and costly changes: automaking must be halted, old motorcycles removed, polluting power plants shut down, and refineries either reformed or replaced. Since more than eighty percent of pollution originates from transportation sources, full enforcement of the Clean Air Act requires deep, expensive transformations — and who dares approve such measures?

Isa Kalantari emphasized: selecting competent leadership for the organization also matters. Dr. Ansari is a good choice — one of the few positive selections made by Dr. Pezeshkian — but her hands are tied. Suppose she wishes to enforce the law; who must execute it? The judiciary, law enforcement, and other executive bodies must step forward and declare their authority. If the Forests and Rangelands Organization and the Environmental Protection Organization were merged administratively, it might be better — especially across extensive natural territories where large-scale protection is needed and violations such as illegal construction and deforestation are widespread.

He added: before becoming head of the Environmental Protection Organization, when I served as advisor to Dr. Jahangiri, I proposed that the northern forests and other valuable ecological zones be placed under full protection by the environmental agency and all exploitation banned. This proposal had its own challenges and costs, but overall, the natural sector of the environment has greater enforcement capacity; for instance, it can more effectively confront poachers and wildlife traffickers. In such areas, at least seventy percent of laws are enforced and rangers have the authority to pursue violations, although in many cases, when rangers are attacked or killed, the follow-ups remain insufficient — which is another separate issue.

The next generation must pay for our mistakes

Kalantari stressed: in contrast, in the field of “human environment” — air pollution, waste management, industrial control, and urban transportation — law enforcement does not even reach ten percent. For example, one environmental expert said that in the early years after the Revolution, vineyards were cultivated around Lake Urmia because they required less water, but later, on the pretext that grapes lead to wine production, grape cultivation was banned and cropping patterns were altered. Such unscientific and political decisions, taken without regard for local water and environmental needs, have produced long-term and destructive consequences. Therefore, our problem is not a lack of laws; the problem is the absence of national will, lack of inter-agency coordination, and resistance to the real costs of implementing sustainable policies. As long as the structure of power and policymaking refuses to accept the actual cost of reforms, the Environmental Protection Organization — no matter how capable its managers may be — cannot solve the problems on its own.

Kalantari concluded: “the next generation must pay for our mistakes. We will no longer be here. I am 73 years old today, and I am considered among the youngest managers of the Revolution’s first generation. Ten years from now, most of us will be gone, but the water crisis, soil crisis, and political crisis will remain. The question is: who will save this country from the abyss of drought and destruction after us? When no one is yet thinking about it, when water, soil, and the environment have no real priority, it is impossible to imagine a bright future. This land is in danger — a real danger, not political but biological and civilizational.”