With its airstrikes deep inside Iran, Israel has set out a dangerous turn in Middle East geopolitics, and in the already-fraying global order. The attacks hit deep inside Iran, from Tehran and Natanz to Isfahan and Tabriz, targeting key nuclear facilities and killing senior scientists and commanders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified the attacks as essential for preventing Iran’s nuclear armament. However, this rationale appears more like a strategic move to derail diplomatic engagement and escalate confrontation. But behind this narrative lies a calculated effort to crush diplomacy, escalate tensions, and reshape the balance of power by force. These strikes are not acts of last resort. They reflect a deliberate choice to abandon negotiations and defy international norms, with no regard for the consequences.
At the heart of this escalating crisis is U.S. President Donald Trump. In 2018, during his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — a hard-won agreement designed to restrict Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. At the time, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iran’s compliance. Trump’s decision, driven more by domestic posturing and ideological vendetta than strategic logic, reopened the path to nuclear escalation. He replaced diplomacy with the “maximum pressure” campaign – sanctions, oil embargoes, and open threats. This set the tone for years of hostility.
In his second term, Trump resumed talks with Iran but undercut them by continuing coercive measures. While his administration sent mixed signals about permissible enrichment levels, Iran saw little sincerity in Washington’s approach. Trump’s administration made contradictory statements — publicly insisting on zero enrichment, yet reportedly entertaining low-level enrichment thresholds in private talks. This contradiction fed Iran’s belief that the U.S. was not interested in a fair deal but rather in capitulation.
The background of Iran’s nuclear programme adds crucial context. Initiated in the 1950s with Western support, the programme became suspect following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Fears that Iran would pursue nuclear weapons were exacerbated by its secrecy and limited cooperation with the IAEA. Still, Iran has always insisted its intentions are peaceful. The JCPOA was meant to offer a framework for accountability, backed by unprecedented verification mechanisms. Trump’s rejection of that framework left a vacuum that hawks on both sides have since exploited.
Return of Double Standards
These military actions expose glaring inconsistencies in Western nuclear policy. While Israel, not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), faces no penalties, Iran is scrutinized for activities it maintains are peaceful and within its treaty rights. In contrast, Iran – a signatory to the NPT- is vilified for exercising its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
The global community cannot ignore this double standard. By enabling Israeli aggression while punishing Iranian compliance, the U.S. and its allies undermine the very system they claim to uphold. Such selective enforcement erodes the legitimacy of international law and emboldens nations to act outside its framework.
Trump’s solid alliance with Netanyahu significantly altered the direction of American foreign policy, favouring unilateralism over multilateral cooperation. His endorsement of Israel’s right to “self- defense” while rejecting Iran’s right to nuclear energy reveals a system built not on rules, but on raw power. This isn’t just dangerous — it is anarchic.
The ethical vacuum is glaring. Israel has carried out assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, launched pre-emptive strikes, and continuously violated Syrian and Lebanese airspace without meaningful international reprimand. Meanwhile, Iran’s enrichment programme monitored by the IAEA, is painted as a global threat. If international law cannot treat states equally, then it becomes a tool of domination, not justice.
This imbalance has practical consequences. It feeds the perception in the Global South that international regimes are instruments of Western hegemony. Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa, which have cautiously supported non-proliferation efforts, may grow cynical about their value. If rules are only enforced against weaker nations, why should emerging powers commit to them?
A Chorus of Condemnation and a Silent UN
Many nations have reacted with alarm to Israel’s actions, warning against further escalation and advocating for renewed diplomacy. The United Kingdom, Japan, Oman, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia have warned of escalation and urged a return to diplomacy. Even U.S. allies are growing wary of Israel’s unchecked militarism. Saudi Arabia went so far as to call the strikes a blatant violation of international law and a threat to regional stability.
Meanwhile, the United Nations has done little beyond issuing statements of concern. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged restraint, but no concrete steps have followed. The UN’s inability is symptomatic of its declining authority in global crisis management. When power politics trumps legal norms, the UN becomes a spectator to chaos.
There are additional questions that demand urgent answers. What exactly did the U.S. know about the Israeli strikes in advance? If Washington was informed and chose not to intervene, it is complicit. If it was not informed, this raises serious questions about the coherence of U.S.-Israel relations and the erosion of strategic trust. But Iran refused to buy this argument.
The strategic void created by escalating tensions could benefit powers like Russia and China. Russia, with its close ties to Iran, having condemned the attack, might attempt to mediate, while China deepens its economic and energy cooperation. Russia could take on a mediator role given its alliance with Iran, though it’s unlikely to press Tehran to align with Western terms. China, which was “deeply worried” about the attack, continues to expand its energy and infrastructure ties with Iran, eroding the efficacy of Western sanctions. These developments mark a realignment of global influence, where multipolarity replaces any semblance of a coherent rules-based order.
Arab countries are also rethinking. The GCC has already condemned the attack. While they have reservations about Iran, they fear a regional war even more. Saudi Arabia had declared that it would pursue nuclear capability if Iran crosses the threshold. This is not a threat made lightly. The region teeters on the brink of a broader arms race, with diplomacy offering few concrete constraints.
Toward a Just and Equitable Global Order ?
The Israeli strikes on Iran are more than a regional provocation. They are a test case for whether the international system can still function based on treaties, norms, and mutual respect. So far, the answer is bleak.
The nuclear issue cannot be resolved through military means. Every strike inside Iran reinforces Tehran’s perceived need for nuclear deterrence – a goal it has long claimed to oppose. Iran’s leadership increasingly sees nuclear capability not just as leverage but as survival. In this light, Israel’s actions may accelerate the very threat it seeks to eliminate.
What the world needs now is a reaffirmation of diplomacy. A revised agreement that respects Iran’s right to peaceful enrichment, coupled with stringent, real-time monitoring by the IAEA, could offer a path forward. This model could also serve as a global standard, aligning civilian nuclear use with strict non-proliferation.
But for this to happen, great powers must act responsibly. The United States must stop mixing regional politics with nuclear negotiations. Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis, while concerning, should not be used as justification to derail nuclear diplomacy. Similarly, Israel must be held to the same standards it demands of others. If non-proliferation is truly the goal, it must apply equally.
Trump’s foreign policy, marked by impulsive decisions and personal agendas, has heightened instability rather than establishing deterrence. His method favoured short-term deals over principled international engagement. His approach to foreign policy is business-like, reckless, and morally vacuous. The same applies to Netanyahu, whose strategy of permanent confrontation has pushed the region to the brink. Their partnership is not rooted in peace, but in mutual interest and political survival.
The time for selective justice is over. What is needed is a world where big and small states alike are bound by international law. Only then can we hope to avoid the catastrophic fallout of a conflict no one truly controls.
The October 2025 deadline of expiry of key provisions under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 offers a last diplomatic window. It is an opportunity that must not be wasted. Washington must lead, not with bombs or ultimatums, but with enforceable agreements built on trust and oversight. Tehran, in turn, must show it is ready for transparency.
This crisis goes beyond Iran and Israel. It strikes at the heart of whether the world still believes in rules over raw power. As authoritarian regimes grow bolder and military force replaces negotiation, the structures meant to preserve global order are falling apart. This is not merely a regional crisis; it represents a broader test of the global order’s resilience. Either the world recommits to diplomacy, law, and restraint, or it descends into a future shaped by violence and impunity. There may be no return from the next misstep.
[Photo by Mehr News Agency, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author.
K.M. Seethi, Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension, is the Academic Advisor of the International Centre for Polar Studies at Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He also served as ICSSR Senior Fellow, Senior Professor and Dean of International Relations at MGU.
