Tehran – Over the past few weeks, the international community has witnessed an astonishing escalation. It is followed by public threats of high-ranking Israeli Iranian commanders, academics and civilians, followed by the US president’s public threat of launching a military strike against Iran’s nuclear power plants.
Care is essential as these sites are subject to confirmed protections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and are dedicated to peaceful purposes through Iran’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
These actions, and the silence that entails from the UN Security Council’s guidance and omissions, sign not only the dangerous erosion of the international order based on rules, but also the deepening of double standards relating to all countries, particularly the global southern countries.
Reports that opened the door to violence
On June 12, the IAEA’s Governor’s Committee adopted a politically charged resolution based on a misleading report by Director Rafael Grossi, which raised ambiguous concerns about Iran’s nuclear program without providing conclusive evidence of violations. Despite this lack of evidence, the solution is primarily driven by European troika and America – quickly passed by Israel and was warmly welcomed.
Within 24 hours, Israel began a strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, citing the resolution as part of its report and justification. In effect, the institutions established to ensure peaceful nuclear development were manipulated to legalize military attacks. This is not just an institutional shortcoming, but a serious violation of the very principles in which the IAEA was established.
Israeli strike: violation of international law
Israel’s attacks on nuclear facilities protected by the IAEA are a blatant violation of international law and a direct violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting the use or threat of force or threat to territorial integrity or political independence.
These facilities are not only peaceful in functioning, but are subject to continuous international testing. Targeting them will not only be struck by the sovereignty of Iran, but also at the heart of the non-proliferation regime. It sets precedents where protected facilities are treated as military targets and erode decades of trust, diplomacy and verification.
The US threat and crisis of institutional reliability
It exacerbates the crisis, and the US president has openly threatened additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. These threats are not only provocative, but are also illegal under international law. However, the IAEA remained silent and the UN Security Council could not respond.
This pattern of selective enforcement shatters the reliability of both institutions. When a powerful state acts with immunity and others are bound by strict standards, the international legal order is left to an institutionalized system of inequality.
The legal foundation is clear
The NPT has been in force since 1970 and rests on three foundational pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and inviolable rights for all parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. As a nuclear-weaponless state, Iran continues to comply with the treaty and is exposing its programme to ongoing IAEA surveillance.
The IAEA is required to verify peaceful use, not to promote coercion or enable military action, as established by Article 3 of its Act. There is no legal or moral basis for using protected information to justify threats or attacks.
Similarly, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter is clear. The use of threats or force is prohibited. When nuclear armed states threaten non-nuclear NPT members under examination, the interests are not mere regions, they are systematic.
Silence is not neutral, it is an accomplice
Director Grossi has the responsibility to defend the integrity of the protected regime – not a diplomatic option. IAEA’s reliability is directly at risk if the facility is inspected and attacked or threatened. Silence in this context does not represent neutrality. That amounts to complicity. While ignoring militarism, we cannot seek dialogue. Doing so would undermine the purpose of the agency and the safety of all states that depend on it.
The UN Security Council must fulfill its duties
The Security Council exists precisely to respond to such a crisis. Military strikes against protected nuclear facilities risk igniting regional wars and undermining global non-proliferation regimes. Failure to act will send dangerous messages to small countries. Its legal commitment is that it is not protected from the political and military whims of the great powers. This is not based on sustainable world order, but on coercion rather than law.
Moral clarity moment
This is not just a crisis for Iran, but a definitive test of the global community. Do you support the principles of sovereign equality, peaceful cooperation and legal restraint? Or will you allow nuclear diplomacy to be hijacked by force and intimidation?
If this course continues, the NPT may not survive. And its collapse is not due to its weak state. That’s because the powerful man first chooses to abandon it.
I call on the IAEA Committee to adopt a resolution condemning all threats and violence against protected nuclear facilities, regardless of the perpetrator. I call on the UN Security Council to reaffirm that international law applies not only to the weak but to all countries.
And I urge scientists, diplomats and citizens to speak up. Because at such moments, silence becomes an accomplice.
In a fragile world, we cannot replace laws with power or allow them to diplomacy in fear.
About the Author: Abbas Akhondi is a former Iranian pastor and professor of politics and economy with a focus on international law and governance.