Attacks on Iran’s Nuclear Sites Set Dangerous Precedent for Non Proliferation Regime

Recently, a war between Iran and Israel broke out, which is termed by US President Donald Trump as the 12-Day War. The conflict is the continuation of the protracted conflict between two states and aimed at rolling back Iran’s nuclear weapon program. From exchanging drones and missiles to targeting nuclear facilities of an NPT state, the crisis has once again highlighted the fragility of peace in the ME. As a result, instability in ME has continued to hurt the prospects of diplomacy, questioned the effectiveness of International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA), and affected nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) credibility. It has also established a precedent that might push Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

The attack on nuclear facilities will pose a serious challenge to the integrity of the NPT. Framing Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its survival, Israel not only launched an attack on another sovereign state, but also killed nuclear scientists and military leadership and hit Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities, to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As in the words of Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, “Israel launched Operation ‘     Rising Lion’     , targeted military strikes to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival”. Along with Israel, the US also conducted military strikes on three nuclear facilities even though it is a member of the NPT. This sets precedent that will have a direct impact on global peace and stability.

The attacks on nuclear facilities cannot be justified under any context or circumstances. Addressing the Board of Governors meeting (BOG), DG IAEA Rafael Mariono Grossi called the attacks deeply concerning, stating, “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked….These attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards as well as regional and international peace and security”. The attack and use of force against an NPT signatory state, regardless of any justification, is against International norms and erodes trust in multilateral institutions, weakens incentives for treaty compliance and pushes non-nuclear weapon states towards nuclear weapon programs for security.  Numerous general conference resolutions on military attacks against nuclear facilities, including GC (XXIX)/RES/444, call an attack on nuclear facilities a violation of International Law, the UN charter, and the Statute of the Agency.

Iran is an NPT signatory and its nuclear activities have been under IAEA safeguards and extensive monitoring since 1974. After the JCPOA concluded in 2015, the IAEA played an essential role in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program as it placed significant restrictions on its uranium enrichment and stockpiling activities. Iran was under the most intrusive verification mechanism since the JCPOA was signed, but the US unilateral withdrawal in 2018 and the policy of maximum pressure by reimposing sanctions reduced compliance by Iran, leading to uranium enrichment up to 60% far beyond the limit of 3.67% allowed under the JCPOA. The concerns of uranium enrichment were repeatedly raised by the DG IAEA. However, based on suspicions, it is unfavorable      to launch an offence against any state in rule-based order.

It not only sets the precedent of using force against NPT signatories, but pushes them to quit NPT and acquire nukes for their survival. As the post-crisis assessment highlights, the attacks have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program, and the country has issued a law to halt any cooperation with the IAEA. The parliament resolution also bans the visit of inspectors to nuclear sites without approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

The attack was launched when negotiations between Iran and the US were ongoing. Notably, the chief negotiator of the nuclear deal, Ali Shamkhani, was also killed by Israel. It is also considered by some as a deliberate attempt by Israel to undermine diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran. In contrast, Israel, a non-NPT state, adheres to a policy of ambiguity concerning its nuclear weapons program, neither confirming nor denying it. Independent investigations and estimates, such as SIPRI report, suggest that Israel does possess a stockpile of warheads with a weapon program supported by delivery systems. Therefore, it reflects how a non-NPT nuclear state attacked a non-nuclear NPT state, undermining the norms set by multilateral institutions.

The IAEA Board of Governors meeting 2025 called upon Iran to urgently improve its non-compliance with the Safeguards agreement by taking all necessary steps and urged a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by Iran’s nuclear program. But the military action taken by Israel outside the framework of international institutions undermined the ability to resolve issues with diplomacy, hence prioritizing confrontation over diplomacy. Article 3 of the NPT establishes a compliance and verification mechanism where non-NWS agree to accept IAEA safeguards to ensure nuclear material is not diverted for weapon production. The IAEA Statute under Article 12 C mandates that non-compliance by any state party must be reported by IAEA Board of Governors to the UNSC and General Assembly. In the recent crisis, the established mechanism was bypassed and did not allow the IAEA to establish the case and refer the matter to the UNSC, which has undermined the legal authority of the IAEA. This established a case of sidelining institutional enforcement, allowing for selective interpretation and implementation of IAEA statute.

The military action against Iran will impact states’ compliance with NPT and IAEA safeguards. The treaty’s core rests on a bargain between nuclear haves and have-nots. The latter willingly gives up the acquisition of nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology. If the states party to NPT perceive that their adherence cannot protect them from aggressive military actions, the value and purpose of remaining within the regime diminishes. The military action does not stop states from acquiring weapons but compels them otherwise. Hence, scholars have raised concerns that this move will further push Iran to quit the NPT and acquire Nuclear Weapons to deter further attacks.

Along with that, the Middle East remains a region of high nuclear sensitivity. The proposal for a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (MENWFZ) has been in the limelight for decades. The geo-political divisions, notably, the contest for regional influence, Israel’s concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and Israel’s own status as a de facto nuclear power in the region make the aspiration of MENWFZ far from realization. The Israeli attack has further pushed Iran towards acquiring weapons to safeguard its sovereignty in the future, and analysts have raised concerns about it. Hence, the idea of MENWFZ remains a distant dream in the presence of Israel’s nuclear weapons program and Iran’s ability to acquire it.

The future of NPT remains fragile as the strike is at the heart of the global non-proliferation regime, challenging the basic tenets of the rule of law, compliance and enforcement. There is a need for consistent and universal application of non-proliferation standards to preserve the integrity of global non-proliferation norms. The nuclear facilities must not be attacked under any pretext or circumstances. While the path to diplomacy has shrunk after the recent crisis, it’s imperative for Iran to adopt the path of diplomacy and adhere to its NPT commitments with a true spirit. Iran must continue its cooperation with IAEA and adhere to its NPT commitment while also raising the agency’s inability to protect its nuclear facilities under its safeguards. IAEA’s inability to condemn the attacks has raised questions on its credibility. Hence, moving forward, IAEA also has to adopt an unbiased stance. The future non-compliance by any state must be referred to UNSC via Board of Governors channel. The United States and Iran should resume negotiations on a nuclear deal that is acceptable for both states. While the future of nuclear talks looks bleak after military strikes, renewed efforts by both sides to regain trust can be the first step after the crisis.