The Lake Urmia discourse reveals the moral, political and emotional dimensions shaping restoration debates. It begins with a shared fear among scientists, policymakers, and the public: the prospect of repeating the Aral Sea’s collapse, encapsulated in the phrase ‘Aral Sea Syndrome’. While this fear unites stakeholders, their visions of ‘saving’ the lake diverge sharply, reflecting contrasting values, epistemologies, and governance philosophies. Two dominant approaches emerge. State-led actors, favor large-scale supply-side interventions such as inter-basin water transfers, dam releases and dredging, exemplified by the 2023 inauguration of a 36-km transfer tunnel. These projects are symptomatic for Iran’s historical Hydraulic Mission, reinforcing centralised control. In contrast, environmental NGOs, critical scientists and local activists promote demand-management strategies—crop changes, irrigation efficiency and reduced water use –, and thus emphasise sustainability and governance reform over infrastructure expansion. The chapter situates this technical divide within deeper ideological and ontological debates: is water a controllable commodity or a co-constitutive actor in socio-natural systems? Fieldwork reveals that the lake is also a cultural and emotional landscape, with residents experiencing its loss as solastalgia and identity erosion with Lake Urmia as it used to be. These affective bonds, along with symbolic narratives, shape public support for restoration pathways. Ultimately, the chapter argues that Lake Urmia’s future will be determined not only by hydrological data but by the fears mobilised, the stories told and the moral commitments embedded in competing visions.