The Brutal Reality of Gulf War Illness

Fought under a desert sun, the Gulf War was a short but fierce lesson in military endurance. Bridging two years, from 1990 to 1991, a mass coalition of nations, led by the United States, waged war on Iraq. For the British, it was the single largest deployment of troops since the Second World War.

But when the dust settled, their fight was far from over. Returning soldiers didn’t know it yet, but they had a new enemy to face. One that had invaded their bodies, and was already taking hold. One by one, all across the world, veterans fell ill in their thousands. Their symptoms varied wildly. Chronic fatigue, asthma, stomach and bowel issues. Muscle wastage, headaches, and memory problems. It seemed like no two cases were the same.

The only thing they all had in common was the Gulf. To sufferers, it seemed the obvious link. But defence departments and governments weren’t so sure. Some even questioned whether this “mystery illness”, now known as Gulf War Syndrome, even existed. And even today, former soldiers are still struggling to get answers.

Insult to Injury

In August 1990, when Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, Ian Ewers-Larose was a medic serving with the Royal Air Force. Stationed at a Jaguar Aircraft Base, he was quickly put on standby for Operation Granby; part of the British military response. As the RAF began to dispatch squadrons and aircraft to the Gulf, Ian was given the job of preparing the medical kits that would go along with them.

Here, at the very start of the story, it was his job to anticipate the injuries and illnesses that might come next. He was also trained in biological and chemical warfare. In an attack of this kind, he’d be the one handling the fallout. As he’d later say, “we had to be prepared for whatever could be thrown at us.”

These were tense times. Arriving in the Gulf, troops were faced with the reality of war – for new recruits, this would be for the first time. Ian himself travelled there to join them, spending six weeks supporting medical teams during Operation Granby.

It was around six months later, while safely at home, that the repercussions caught up with him. Ian collapsed, and was rushed to hospital with a suspected brain haemorrhage. Days later, with no feeling in his legs, he learned that his myelin sheath – the protective membrane that wraps around nerve cells in the spinal column – had been destroyed. But doctors were at a loss to fully explain it.

They considered Multiple Sclerosis as a possibility, but this didn’t quite fit: Ian didn’t have any of the other symptoms to suggest it.

With no clear explanation, he was discharged back to the RAF, where he struggled to work. He tried to continue but had issues with his walking and eyesight. He constantly fell ill. Eventually, he was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, taking redundancy in 1996. He applied for a war pension, receiving £1,500 in compensation. Now, decades later, his condition hasn’t improved. He’s since had multiple strokes, and lives with chronic fatigue, neuropathy pains, and heart arrhythmia.

He’s just one of the thousands of Gulf War veterans who live with its mysterious legacy. Ian’s story is unique to him, but it’s not unusual. The war itself was relatively short-lived. A ceasefire agreement was signed in April 1991, and by June that year, the final ground troops had returned home. Almost a million service personnel had been involved, from over 40 countries. The operations were celebrated as a worldwide success. Casualties had been much lower than anticipated.

But even that year, US soldiers returning from the conflict began reporting symptoms. There seemed to be clusters of strange and unexplained illnesses. Reports mentioned cognitive difficulties, rashes, insomnia, and gastrointestinal issues. Fatigue and memory problems.

Researchers Simon Wessely and Lawrence Freeman write that, in many cases, these were hard to pin down. Or, where specific claims were made, they couldn’t yet be proved. Medical investigators in Indiana concluded that symptoms were probably linked to the “stress of homecoming”. It was seen as a possible case of mass hysteria, or hypochondria.

Veterans visiting their doctor didn’t know how to explain what was happening inside their own bodies. A study into the healthcare journey of these patients found that they usually fell into a cycle of referrals. Passed from pillar to post, they’d see specialists who could investigate individual symptoms, before circling back to primary care. Often, very little was found to help them.

Tests came back “normal”, and investigations couldn’t find a clear underlying cause. Many of those involved felt dismissed, invalidated, or given the sense that they were making it all up. One was told bluntly by an academic medical centre that they’d “wasted 10,000 of the taxpayers’ [dollars], there was nothing wrong with me”. Others found themselves seeing multiple doctors at once, who would all treat just part of the problem.

And still, there was no acknowledgement that a single cause lay behind it all. Instead, some patients were told that their symptoms were due to lifestyle factors, like alcohol consumption or lack of sleep. In other words, they’d brought it on themselves. Or if not, it was likely to be just a temporary illness, like a stomach ulcer or bronchitis. It’d clear up, given time. But it didn’t, and those illnesses persisted.

Changes in diet, drinking and smoking habits made no lasting impact. It was all the more frustrating because, typically, these were young, fit and healthy people: servicemen and women, trained for combat. Later, one of the veterans taking part in a study remembered shrugging off news stories about symptoms, saying, “you don’t want to think about it. You don’t want to be another victim.” Another, who described themselves as previously “very athletic and very outgoing”, became almost housebound.

It was clear – at least to sufferers – that something was going on. During their deployment, many had been exposed to airborne hazards like burning oil wells. They’d been vaccinated, and given medications. They’d experienced similar levels of physical stress.

By 1993, two years later, awareness had spread. In the UK, Canada, and Australia the name “Gulf War Syndrome” was coming into use. Today, this is actually a less-common term for what we’re talking about. You’ll also hear it referred to as Gulf War Illness or Illnesses.

That’s because it’s never been neatly wrapped up as one clear and uniform disease. There’s no single diagnostic test that you can run to find out if you’ve got it. Instead, it’s considered by some to be a collection of illnesses and symptoms relating to other conditions.

At the time, of course, nobody really knew what they were dealing with. And whatever they called it, it was a mounting problem. Rising numbers of people were reporting health issues. Issues relating to an illness that nobody was sure actually existed. A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Hart, dismissed it, saying, “It is just some symptoms that we don’t have an explanation for”. In Britain, as veterans called for damages from the Ministry of Defence, the government officially shut down any suggestion that there was a Gulf War Illness. Defence Minister Nicholas Soames chalked up claims to “a mixture of unsubstantiated rumour [and] incorrect information”.

But veterans couldn’t be silenced forever. And so, in 1995, a House of Commons Select Committee was created to hear what they had to say. It was led by the British Ministry of Defence doctor, Wing Commander Bill Coker. He examined around 80 of the “alleged victims” before concluding that while many were ill, their complaints were entirely unconnected. With each other, and with the Gulf. In response to the idea of a conspiracy, he quipped, “You could write a thriller about the mystery disease the MoD is covering up […] It is a marvellous story but it is not good medicine.”

Today, we can look back at a research paper, compiled for the benefit of MPs and their staff in 1995. This examined the medical issues related to Gulf War illnesses. At this time, the term “Gulf War Syndrome” was kept firmly at arm’s length. So, too, were the other names sometimes given to it: Desert Storm Syndrome, Persian Gulf Syndrome, and Desert Fever. All, the paper said, could be applied to “a condition which may or may not exist”.

Even news reporters chose their words carefully. Contemporary reports mention the “so-called” syndrome and the “individuals who believe” they have it. The MP Edwina Currie described the treatment of veterans as “a national disgrace”. Of course, for sufferers, the culture of disbelief only added insult to injury.

In 1996, scientists at Glasgow’s Institute of Neurological Sciences set out to investigate. Was Gulf War Syndrome even a thing? And if it was, what could have caused it?

Does it Exist?

At this point, the US military establishment had already admitted that the “mystery illness” did exist. There, it was attributed to some kind of environmental health issue. The White House had channelled three million dollars into carrying out in-depth medical assessments, with a panel of experts leading the charge. Among them were some of the country’s foremost scientists, doctors, and business representatives. And so, on both sides of the Atlantic, two separate teams were drawing their conclusions.

The study in Glasgow compared the conditions of fourteen Gulf War veterans – twelve men and two women – with those of healthy civilians. Specifically, it looked at whether there was evidence of damage to the nervous system. This might explain what it called “the bizarre collection of symptoms” attributed to Gulf War Syndrome. As part of this, researchers tested how participants responded to things like heat, cold, and vibration. They also passed electrical impulses through the arms and legs.

The findings, published in April 1996, were cautious but significant. To some extent, they vindicated the experiences of veterans. Scientists found that measurements related to nerve function were abnormal. At last, there was evidence of a real condition within the bodies of returning soldiers. But researchers still couldn’t say why it was happening. To get any further, more studies would be needed.

All the same, it was a very tentative step in the right direction – and one that was celebrated by veterans across the world. In a telephone interview, Jim Tuite from the Gulf War Research Foundation said, “For the first time, the veterans have scientific proof to say, ‘We are not the same as we were’”. However, this was a very long way from proving Gulf War Syndrome, or Gulf War Illness, existed.

Later that year, the American report was issued. The panel behind it found the US government had been “slow to act” on veterans’ concerns. It recommended better communication and better record keeping. But crucially, it found no direct link between the environment of the Gulf War and the broad spectrum of symptoms and illnesses being reported by veterans.

Instead, it spoke of the way that stress might affect the brain, immune system, and hormonal responses. “Stress manifests in diverse ways,” wrote the panel, “and is likely to be an important contributing factor to the broad range of physiological and psychological illnesses currently being reported by Gulf War veterans.”

In short, as far as they were concerned, there was no single Gulf War Syndrome. And, although the British study showed clear signs of physical damage, the prevailing question was still whether the syndrome and its manifestations existed at all.

Clearly, much more research would need to take place – and it already was. Just weeks after the American panel shared their thoughts, three more US studies emerged. These were firmly at odds with the official investigation. At a press conference, journal editor George Lundberg made a controversial statement. “Yes, there is a Gulf War syndrome”, he said. “In fact, there appear to be several”.

The newer studies argued that there were actually three separate Gulf War syndromes. This was because symptoms could be grouped into three different “clusters”. Number one, memory and sleep problems; number two, reasoning problems, confusion and dizziness; and number three, muscle pains and fatigue. In comparison with healthy veterans, the Gulf War vets displayed significantly more neurological damage.

Not everyone was convinced, though. Other experts, including White House panel members, were sceptical. The studies’ subjects had been drawn from just one naval unit, they said, meaning there was no proof that its findings would apply to Gulf War veterans more generally. It could only be a “plausible hypothesis”. The scientific community was divided.

But, with at least some recognition that these illnesses existed, the next step was to narrow down why. What had happened, either during active service in the Gulf, or either side of it, that could explain the symptoms?

A Cocktail of Chemicals

The early studies had already come up with different theories. High on the list of possible culprits were pesticide poisoning, exposure to chemical weapons, and side-effects from vaccinations. These were heavily debated and investigated at the time, so let’s spend a little bit of time considering each.

First up, there’s the potential that troops were exposed to pesticides. In their 1997 paper, researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School made a clear link between those with similar conditions who’d experienced pesticide poisoning. They believed at least some of the syndromes they identified were consistent with a neurological disorder called delayed neuropathy. This is a rare condition that’s been known to emerge after poisoning with organophosphate pesticides.

The tale of how this exposure might have happened was surprising. Researchers found that some Gulf veterans had actually worn flea collars during the war. Impregnated with pesticides, these were used as an improvised method of repelling sand fleas and desert pests. The problem was that these were never designed for human use. They certainly shouldn’t have been worn against the skin, on wrists and ankles. But they were.

Later investigations in the UK confirmed the same thing. In a memo written for the Gulf Veterans’ Association, Professor Malcolm Hooper found that pesticides and insect repellents had been worn as flea collars, as well as being impregnated in bedding, clothing, and tents. There were even reports of servicemen spraying them inside their protective suits.

On top of this, some accounts described teams handling leaking containers and burying insecticides with “aggressive side-effects”. This reality was radically different to an account given in the House of Commons years earlier, in 1994. At that time, the Secretary of State for Defence had said he was aware of “only 10 British service personnel who would have been involved with organo-phosphorous pesticides” during the Gulf conflict.

Similarly, although the US panel was able to confirm which pesticides had been shipped to the Gulf, it admitted there were no records of how they’d been used or distributed after that.

It was a worrying picture, especially as many of these insecticides had known links with neurological damage. But perhaps most interesting was the fact that some had the potential to cause symptoms reminiscent of post-traumatic stress disorder. The very condition sufferers felt they’d been fobbed off with in the first place. In a blistering conclusion, Hooper wrote that the evidence given by troops themselves was “much more reliable” than that offered by Parliament and the Ministry of Defence, which – to quote him – “has been shown to be corrupt”. And indeed, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Nicholas Soames, was later forced to apologise, admitting that organophosphates had been more widely used than he’d “previously been advised”.

Naturally, the Ministry of Defence disagreed. In a note of its own, it described Hooper’s words as misleading, confusing, simplistic, and badly referenced. It was all turning into a very British war of the memos.

Pesticides weren’t the only possible culprit, though. The official US panel explored a different avenue. As a group, they criticised military officials for what had been a “slow and superficial” investigation into one plausible theory: the possibility that US troops had been exposed to chemical weapons. Among their findings was what they phrased as “substantial evidence of site-specific, low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents”.

In late January and early February 1991, the US-led coalition forces had carried out air attacks on two Iraqi sites suspected of making and storing chemical weapons. At one point, it was thought these attacks might have dispersed the chemicals involved, sending airborne nerve agents skywards. But in fact, this probably wasn’t the case. The fallout from these attacks was deemed “highly unlikely” to have spread.

A much better candidate was the destruction of chemical weapons after the war had ended. With a ceasefire agreed, US personnel used explosives to wipe out a storage depot containing sarin and cyclosarin – powerful nerve agents – in Khamisiyah. As part of this, they destroyed 45 warehouses and more than 70 ammunition bunkers. One had contained over 2,000 chemical warfare-filled rockets. At another location, known as “the Pit”, they blew up a further 1,250 rockets in the open air.

In doing this, they could prevent Iraqi forces from re-arming in the future. But they also created a massive contamination area. For those in the locale or downwind, exposure was very likely. Nearby sensors designed to monitor nuclear, biological and chemical hazards soon showed traces of nerve agents in the air.

Because of this, the Department of Defence began an initiative to contact any US troops who might be at risk. The exact numbers of those exposed, and the levels of chemicals involved, were unclear. What was initially described as “300 to 400” troops rose to 20,000, and finally 99,000. The UK’s Ministry of Defence later estimated that an additional 9,000 British personnel were in the contamination area, but dismissed the nerve agent levels as so low that they’d have a “minimal impact on health”.

Mirroring this, the US Department of Defence reported that after sending out 20,000 questionnaires to troops who’d been in the area, 99.5 percent of those who responded “had no physical effects” associated with sarin exposure. But there was a potential flaw in their assumptions here. Officials were relying on medical literature that argued sarin levels too low to cause immediate symptoms couldn’t cause chronic illness. If you felt fine at the time, they argued, it couldn’t be the cause years down the line.

With that, another theory was officially shut down. And this leads me on to a third pathway – one signposted by the researchers in Glasgow, in 1996. The neurologist Dr Goran Jamal, who led the study, admitted there were many possible causes “in the dock”. But he also pointed to the cocktail of drugs and vaccinations given to service personnel before they flew out.

Allied soldiers were given a three-month course of tablets to ward against chemical and biological attacks. These sat alongside vaccines for diseases like typhoid, yellow fever and cholera. Multiple injections, all given in a short time frame. Although the effects of each substance were individually known, Jamal argued, “their combined effects are not”.

Which raised the question, could some kind of interaction or overload have prompted the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome?

If this were true, the very doctors and scientists who’d set out to protect soldiers – from biological and chemical warfare, as well as disease – had actually planted a devastating seed. It would be the ultimate wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This idea was supported by revelations that even forces who’d been vaccinated, but never deployed, had fallen ill. Among their number were BCRs: battle casualty replacements. Personnel who’d been prepped for war in the same way, and given the same vaccinations, but ultimately not sent overseas. The fact that they were falling ill, with the same wide range of symptoms, suggested the root cause might be found closer to home.

In light of this, more and more questions started being asked about the vaccinations given. The Ministry of Defence was criticised for withholding details about the precise range of vaccines they’d administered. Some veterans complained they’d been denied access to their own medical records, being told the contents were secret. This made sense, to a certain extent, because publicly available records of pre-war vaccinations could be useful to future enemies.

But, as the situation threatened to blow into a storm, the government was forced to backtrack. In December 1996, it finally released a full record of the vaccines given to British troops.

Some were to be expected; the jabs commonly given to soldiers going overseas. Others were more specific to the conflict, with vaccines to guard against possible biological warfare: deliberate infection with diseases like plague and anthrax. In total, most personnel were given around a dozen different injections, in a short time frame.

Kerry Fuller, who served as an aircraftman with the RAF, has spoken publicly about the illnesses he’s been left with. He says that within a week of receiving his vaccinations, he’d been hospitalised – for the first time – with chronic fatigue. “We were used as guinea-pigs, knowingly or unknowingly,” he said in an interview. “Going to war didn’t bother me but I didn’t bank on being poisoned by my own side.”

Officially, the vaccines were supposed to be voluntary. It was up to individual soldiers to decide if they wanted to receive them. But even more controversy emerged as some claimed they’d been pressured into conforming. In parliament, it was admitted that “some personnel felt under intense pressure” to accept the vaccinations. The idea of “voluntary informed consent” was entirely picked apart. A government research briefing admitted that “refusal to receive treatment could lead to disciplinary action”.

In fact, every line of enquiry into Gulf War Syndrome seemed to throw up more scandals, hidden details and omissions. But frustratingly, none of these led to any clear, definitive answers.

Questioning

The rampant uncertainty around Gulf War Syndrome and its possible causes left veterans with more questions than ever. The passage of time only threw up more and more theories about what could have caused it. Depleted uranium poisoning, viral infection, parasites, aspartame poisoning, and the fumes from oil well fires. All were considered.

In 2001, a new wave of controversy broke with claims that vaccinated troops had allegedly been given an illegal “booster”. A team at the Tulane Medical School in Louisiana tested former US and UK personnel, finding evidence that suggested they’d been unwittingly given a substance called squalene. This is a chemical that can be added to a vaccine to make it more combative. Essentially, it speeds up the body’s immunity to a disease.

Useful if you’re preparing for war in a short time frame. However, at the time it wasn’t licensed for use in either country because of its damaging side-effects. Tests on rats and mice found that it could cause auto-immune disease.

But others steadfastly insist that so-called Gulf War Syndrome is simply a manifestation of PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder. This would make it a psychological illness, rather than a physical one. In the early 1990s, when the Gulf War ended, the definition and classification of PTSD was a relatively recent thing. In the UK, it was only in 1980, following the Vietnam War, that it had first been recognised as a psychiatric disorder that was wholly related to an event or environment.

There was a new understanding of the link between PTSD and the nervous system. In the absence of definitive answers, it was a convenient catch-all solution.

And I have to tell you that we’re not going to be solving anything here today. New theories have emerged in recent years, and I’ll look at those shortly, but even now, nobody knows for sure what caused Gulf War illness. Thirty-five years after the conflict ended, there’s no single, scientifically proven narrative.

In fact, medical experts can’t even agree on which symptoms and illnesses, if any, are definitely linked to the Gulf War. Most people agree that conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and gastrointestinal disorders, are common among the veterans who’ve fallen ill. Other unexplained illnesses like muscle and joint pain, headaches, skin conditions and sleep disturbances also fall into this camp.

But there are other effects that have divided experts. Studies carried out in the early 2000s showed that some Gulf War veterans had an increased risk of brain cancer. This was a link that showed up in troops who’d been exposed to chemical agents during the demolition of stores in Khamisiyah. In particular, those who’d been exposed were more likely to develop brain tumours in the years immediately following the war. Other investigations looked at Gulf veterans who’d developed lymphatic and bone marrow cancers.

Around the same time, a separate study seemed to show a rising number of birth defects in the babies of Gulf War veterans. An article in the Guardian reported that children born to British soldiers had a greater risk of chromosome abnormalities in their genes. In this case, the outcome was related to depleted uranium, used in ammunition. Once in the body, uranium can linger for years, quietly emitting radiation.

This didn’t just affect Gulf War soldiers – it also impacted those who’d fought in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. Some deployed parents had up to 14 times the usual level of chromosome abnormalities.

The signs were there in America, too. The US government sent a survey out to 21,000 veterans. The responses received showed that those who served in the Gulf were two to three times more likely to report birth defects in their children.

These were controversial claims. The Ministry of Defence blasted tests for not being “scientifically sound”. Other researchers argued that there was “no evidence” of an increased rate of birth defects. In debates around both causes and effects, experts just couldn’t agree. And some still argued that Gulf War Syndrome didn’t exist at all.

This created a major legal headache for veterans, their families, and the people we might call “interested officials”. Some former Gulf War fighters were too ill to work, raising the question of compensation and pension money.

In the UK, it all came to a head in June 2003, when a former serviceman, Shaun Rusling, went to fight his case in the High Court. He was there to argue that the range of health problems he now had were caused by his service in the Gulf War. In this case, he said, he should be eligible for a disablement war pension. In the other corner, the Ministry of Defence argued that it shouldn’t have to pay, because it didn’t recognise Gulf War Syndrome as a condition.

This was a case that had been back and forth for a decade, with various appeals and verdicts that had been overturned. This time, Shaun Rusling was hoping for a final answer. It all came down to whether or not Gulf War Syndrome, or illness, was considered to exist.

In the end, Rusling was victorious. The High Court awarded him his pension. But the verdict itself wasn’t clear-cut. The judge decided in favour of the Gulf War veteran, determining that his illness was related to his service. But he stopped short of saying that Gulf War Syndrome was, in itself, a “single disease entity”. That, he said, was not his place to decide. All the same, it was a landmark ruling. Legally, illnesses like Shaun Rusling’s had finally been attributed to the Gulf War.

The Ministry of Defence appealed the decision, unsuccessfully. It said that, to quote, “We accept that some Gulf veterans have become ill and that many veterans believe this ill-health is related to their Gulf experience.” Nevertheless, they said, “the overwhelming consensus of medical and scientific opinion is that the symptoms reported by some Gulf veterans do not constitute a discrete medical disorder or syndrome.”

In the end, Shaun Rusling received a 90% back-dated war pension. His was just one case, but for fellow sufferers it was a flash of light in the darkness; one man who was officially told that it wasn’t just “all in his head”.

A few years later, in 2008, the US Research Advisory Committee published a report on Gulf War veterans’ illnesses. This looked at everything from past research and investigations to the many possible causes of the conditions. And in doing so, it made some hugely important statements. It described Gulf War Illness as “a serious condition”, and one that “fundamentally differs” from post-war trauma and stress.

It also pushed, in writing, for better funding and research, describing this as “a national obligation, made especially urgent by the many years that Gulf War veterans have waited for answers and assistance.”

An Ending (of Sorts)

In 1991, almost a million troops returned from the Gulf War. But of these numbers, around a third would go on to be struck down by a mystery illness. As we’ve heard, what became known as Gulf War Syndrome, or Gulf War Illness, was unpredictable and wide ranging. For the military personnel affected, it was a crushing blow.

They were confused, sick, and sometimes unable to work. They didn’t understand what was going on in their bodies. And for so many years, neither did anyone else. Worst of all, large numbers of experts and officials argued that it wasn’t even real.

Their experience was all in their heads.

And so, for thousands of formerly fit, healthy troops, everyday life became just another battleground. They had to fight for their health, their money, and recognition of what was happening to them. Thirty-five years later, to some extent, they’ve made progress. Gulf War Illness is more widely accepted now than it once was.

In the US, in 2025, the CDC – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – formally recognised it as an illness in its own right. It was given a dedicated diagnostic code, meaning it could be better identified in doctors’ offices. For veterans, the news was celebrated as “long-overdue validation […] a formal acknowledgement that their illness is real, physical and service-related.” It was a major step forward.

But despite a lot of theories and findings, there are still unanswered questions. The latest studies have proved strong links between the cognitive impairments experienced by veterans and the toxins they were exposed to through chemical weapons, pesticides and anti-nerve-agent tablets. In 2024, another study suggested soldiers were suffering from faulty cellular function, due to hazardous chemicals.

But no single, definite source has been found; perhaps because there wasn’t one. Maybe, as the US advisory committee suggested, it really was a combination of everything that was thrown at military forces – from vaccinations and pesticides to clouds of destroyed nerve agents.

Even now, different countries approach Gulf War Syndrome differently. In the UK, it’s still not officially recognised as a distinct and unique diagnosis. Instead, the description “Gulf War Illness” is considered only a “useful umbrella term” for various symptoms.

But however it’s defined – or not – it’s a condition that still affects hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans today. Not just in the UK and US, but across the world, in countries like Australia, Denmark and Canada. There is no cure for Gulf War Syndrome. It’s a chronic and complex illness that spent years being brushed under the carpet. Its story has been controversial, with multiple accusations of cover-ups. As we’ve heard, right back in 1995, the treatment of sufferers was branded “a national disgrace”.

In a speech to the Brookings Institution, veteran and congressman Mike Coffman described the culture of distrust that came out of this chapter of history. And he also suggested why. Amid the triumph that followed the Gulf War, he believes, officials simply “didn’t want a blemish on what would be [an] extraordinary celebration”. For allied forces, the war represented success: a glorious end. But for those wearing the boots, on the ground, it was only the beginning.

Key Takeaways

• Around one-third of nearly one million Gulf War veterans later developed Gulf War Illness, with symptoms ranging from chronic fatigue to neurological damage.
• Governments and military officials initially dismissed veterans’ claims, attributing symptoms to stress, mass hysteria, or lifestyle factors rather than a real physical condition.
• Multiple potential causes were investigated, including pesticide exposure from flea collars, destruction of chemical weapons at Khamisiyah, and combinations of vaccines and anti-nerve-agent tablets.
• In 2003, British veteran Shaun Rusling won a landmark High Court case securing his war pension, though the court stopped short of recognizing Gulf War Syndrome as a single disease entity.
• The CDC formally recognized Gulf War Illness with a dedicated diagnostic code in 2025, yet the UK still treats it only as an umbrella term rather than a distinct diagnosis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Gulf War Syndrome and what are some of its symptoms?

Gulf War Syndrome, also known as Gulf War Illness or Illnesses, is a collection of illnesses and symptoms affecting veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Symptoms vary widely and include chronic fatigue, asthma, stomach and bowel issues, muscle wastage, headaches, memory problems, cognitive difficulties, rashes, insomnia, gastrointestinal issues, muscle and joint pain, skin conditions, and sleep disturbances. It is not considered one clear and uniform disease, with no single diagnostic test available.

How did governments and defence departments initially respond to reports of Gulf War Syndrome?

Governments and defence departments were initially skeptical and dismissive. In Britain, the government officially shut down any suggestion of a Gulf War Illness, with Defence Minister Nicholas Soames attributing claims to ‘a mixture of unsubstantiated rumour [and] incorrect information.’ A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Hart, dismissed it as ‘just some symptoms that we don’t have an explanation for.’ Some officials questioned whether the illness even existed, suggesting it might be mass hysteria, hypochondria, or stress-related.

What did the 1996 Glasgow study find regarding Gulf War Syndrome?

The 1996 study by scientists at Glasgow’s Institute of Neurological Sciences compared fourteen Gulf War veterans with healthy civilians, looking for evidence of nervous system damage. Researchers tested responses to heat, cold, vibration, and passed electrical impulses through limbs. The findings, published in April 1996, showed that measurements related to nerve function were abnormal, providing evidence of a real physical condition. However, researchers could not explain why it was happening and noted more studies would be needed.

What were some of the main theories about the causes of Gulf War Syndrome?

Several theories were investigated: pesticide poisoning (including exposure from wearing flea collars impregnated with pesticides against the skin), exposure to chemical weapons (particularly from the destruction of sarin and cyclosarin at Khamisiyah after the war), and side-effects from vaccinations and medications given to troops (including a cocktail of vaccines for diseases like typhoid, yellow fever, cholera, plague and anthrax, plus anti-nerve-agent tablets). Other theories considered included depleted uranium poisoning, viral infection, parasites, aspartame poisoning, and fumes from oil well fires.

What was the significance of the 2003 Shaun Rusling High Court case?

In June 2003, former serviceman Shaun Rusling successfully fought his case in the High Court for a disablement war pension, arguing his health problems were caused by his Gulf War service. The Ministry of Defence had argued it shouldn’t pay because it didn’t recognize Gulf War Syndrome as a condition. The judge ruled in Rusling’s favor, determining his illness was related to his service, though he stopped short of declaring Gulf War Syndrome a ‘single disease entity.’

Rusling received a 90% back-dated war pension. The Ministry of Defence’s appeal was unsuccessful, making it a landmark ruling that legally attributed such illnesses to the Gulf War.

How many Gulf War veterans were affected by the illness?

Of the almost one million troops who returned from the Gulf War in 1991, around a third would go on to be struck down by the mystery illness. The condition still affects hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans today across the world, including in the UK, US, Australia, Denmark and Canada.

What was the US Research Advisory Committee’s 2008 position on Gulf War Illness?

In 2008, the US Research Advisory Committee published a report describing Gulf War Illness as ‘a serious condition’ that ‘fundamentally differs’ from post-war trauma and stress. The committee pushed for better funding and research, describing this as ‘a national obligation, made especially urgent by the many years that Gulf War veterans have waited for answers and assistance.‘

When did the CDC formally recognize Gulf War Illness, and what did this mean?

In 2025, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) formally recognized Gulf War Illness as an illness in its own right. It was given a dedicated diagnostic code, meaning it could be better identified in doctors’ offices. Veterans celebrated this as ‘long-overdue validation’ and ‘a formal acknowledgement that their illness is real, physical and service-related.‘

What role did vaccinations play in the Gulf War Syndrome controversy?

Vaccinations became a major focus of investigation. Allied soldiers were given a three-month course of tablets against chemical and biological attacks, plus multiple vaccines for diseases including typhoid, yellow fever, cholera, plague and anthrax. The neurologist Dr Goran Jamal noted that while individual effects were known, ‘their combined effects are not.’

Revelations that even vaccinated personnel who were never deployed (battle casualty replacements) fell ill suggested the cause might be found closer to home. The Ministry of Defence was criticized for withholding vaccine details and some veterans claimed they were denied access to their own medical records. Though officially voluntary, some personnel felt pressured, with parliamentary admission that ‘refusal to receive treatment could lead to disciplinary action.‘

What was the Khamisiyah incident and its connection to Gulf War Syndrome?

After the ceasefire, US personnel used explosives to destroy a storage depot at Khamisiyah, Iraq containing sarin and cyclosarin nerve agents. They destroyed 45 warehouses and over 70 ammunition bunkers, including one with over 2,000 chemical warfare-filled rockets, plus another 1,250 rockets at ‘the Pit.’ This created a massive contamination area. Nearby sensors detected nerve agents in the air.

The Department of Defense contacted potentially exposed troops, with estimates of those exposed rising from ‘300 to 400’ to 20,000, and finally 99,000 US troops. The UK Ministry of Defence estimated an additional 9,000 British personnel were in the contamination area but dismissed nerve agent levels as having ‘minimal impact on health.‘

Sources

• Original Scandal video: The Brutal Reality of Gulf War Illness
• Hero image source by HubCityMan1912 / openverse, by-sa.

Related Coverage