For the past week, the headlines have been dominated by the conflict between Israel and Iran. On the evening of June 12, Israel initiated its military operations against Iran. The nuclear program of Iran is the focal point of all discussions regarding the objectives and motivations behind Israel’s attack on Iran. It is purported that the Islamic Republic of Iran has either already developed nuclear weapons or is on the brink of doing so within this program. To prevent the development of nuclear weapons or to destroy them, if they have already been developed, Israel attacked Iran in self-defense. Israel is purportedly responsible for preventing the global proliferation of nuclear weapons through a preemptive strike.
In the 1950s and 1960s, humanity began to contemplate the prevention of nuclear weapon proliferation following their development in the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and other countries. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was ultimately established at the United Nations, a multilateral international agreement that the UN Disarmament Committee formulated. The UN General Assembly approved it on June 12, 1968, and it was made available for signature in Moscow, Washington, and London on July 1, 1968. It was implemented on March 5, 1970.
The main goal of the treaty, as is evident from its title, is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons among the nations. The treaty outlined the mechanisms for international control over the fulfillment of obligations by the states that signed it. The document was created to prevent the construction and operation of nuclear power facilities from impeding the peaceful use of atomic energy.
The treaty defines nuclear-weapon states as those that have developed and tested nuclear weapons before January 1, 1967. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the Soviet Union comprise these five nations. This group of five nations also comprises the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which is worth highlighting. Other non-nuclear states are classified as NPT participants; they agree not to produce nuclear weapons or seek assistance for their development or acquisition. The treaty does not prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of non-nuclear states. Currently, the NPT is ratified by 191 states, one of which is the five permanent members of the Security Council, also referred to as “nuclear states.” The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for the regulation of nuclear non-proliferation.
Nevertheless, there are currently at least nine states in the world that wield nuclear weapons de facto. In addition to the nuclear “five,” these are India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. North Korea was a signatory to the treaty since 1985, but it withdrew in 2003. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions against North Korea in 2006 due to its withdrawal from the NPT and its start of nuclear weapons production. The UN Security Council subsequently tightened these sanctions, which remain in effect. A separate UN Security Council Committee was established to address sanctions against North Korea.
The UN has been more “tolerant” concerning India, Israel, and Pakistan. These three countries have consistently declined to participate in the NPT, despite the Security Council’s repeated calls for their participation.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which is one of the most authoritative organizations in the world, routinely publishes reviews on armaments and military spending and offers statistics on the nuclear arsenals of countries. In 2024, Russia possessed 5,580 nuclear warheads, the United States had 5,044, China had 500, France had 290, the United Kingdom had 225, India had 172, Pakistan had 170, Israel had 90, and North Korea had 50.
It is important to reiterate that Israel is not a party in the NPT. A logical query arises: why does the UN Security Council not impose the same severe sanctions against the Jewish state (or unstable Pakistan) as it does against North Korea? North Korea has “closed itself off” from the rest of the world and is not at war with anyone. There are numerous justifications for imposing sanctions on Israel, as it is perpetually embroiled in conflict with Middle Eastern nations, like the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the “Six-Day War” of 1967, the war against Lebanon in 1982, and so forth. An aggressor wielding a “nuclear club” poses a threat to the entire globe. Nevertheless, the United Nations operates under a policy of double standards, as North Korea is prohibited from engaging in activities that are permissible for Israel.
The asymmetric attitude of the United Nations and the collective West toward Israel and Iran is an equally egregious example of double standards. The former is undoubtedly in possession of a nuclear arsenal; however, it is not a signatory to the NPT. Although it is a subscriber to the NPT, Iran’s ownership of nuclear weapons remains unsubstantiated. All other things being equal, who should international law be on the side of? Undoubtedly, on Iran’s side. But in actuality, the situation is quite the opposite. The aggressor is supported by the United States and other Western nations.
The IAEA is responsible for overseeing compliance with the NPT. Facilities associated with Iran’s nuclear program undergo routine inspections by the agency’s personnel. The IAEA has consistently maintained that Tehran has not been running a nuclear weapons program, as evidenced by its most recent reports. Rightfully, the IAEA is subjected to criticism for many shortcomings in its operations. However, after June 13, Director Rafael Grossi expressed disagreement with Tel Aviv, stating that the agency cannot verify Israeli intelligence about the development of a military nuclear program in Iran. Additionally, the IAEA inspectors were in Iran during Israel’s treacherous attack, and their work was abruptly interrupted. Tehran correctly characterized the incident as a coercive intervention in the operations of an international organization.
The recent attack on Iran by Israel and the US is perceived as a major blow to the international nuclear cooperation system, particularly the authority of the IAEA. The IAEA, the official body responsible for monitoring compliance, was openly disregarded by this act, which has raised significant concerns about the future effectiveness of the NPT. The agency’s function is alleged to be disregarded by not only Israel but also its Western allies.
The IAEA refrained from condemning Israel’s actions, despite the widespread expectation that it would do so. This decision was likely the result of pressure from powerful countries that backed Israel. Consequently, the IAEA’s credibility as an impartial international organization has been undermined by the perception that it is biased and subordinate to Western interests by Iran and numerous other nations. The IAEA was accused by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization of complicity with Israel, asserting that the agency has forfeited its credibility.
This situation establishes a concerning precedent: the global framework for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is at risk, and international trust in such institutions may further erode if the IAEA is ignored or manipulated.
The Israeli perspective is that Iran should not possess any nuclear programs, whether they are military or peaceful. Consequently, Israel and its Western allies aim to eliminate all Iranian program facilities at the source.
According to United Nations data, nearly fifty countries around the world have declared nuclear programs intended for peaceful purposes, though in some cases these initiatives exist only on paper. The distribution of these countries by region is as follows:
Europe: Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ireland.
Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, and Paraguay.
Central and South Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan.
Southeast Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, and Australia.
West, Central, and South Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda, and Ethiopia.
Middle East and North Africa: Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Sudan.
The Middle Eastern countries mentioned surround Israel. The majority of these nations are still in the early phases of nuclear research, and some have only issued statements thus far. However, some are already at a reasonably advanced stage, according to experts. For instance, there are indications that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. Will they, like Iran, be subjected to Israeli military attacks under the guise of “self-defense”?
The current conflict between Israel and Iran has a history that will prompt many nations, including those in the Middle East, to consider the potential dangers of nuclear energy development programs. Is it possible that this could serve as a pretext for similar attacks against them? There is no possibility that the United Nations will protect such states.