Israel’s airstrikes on Iran may fuel global geopolitical instability

Earlier, even as reports of an Israeli attack were revealed – the IRGC had vowed to retaliate if nuclear facilities were targeted and added that this would invite a “devastating and decisive response” on targets, including US military infrastructure in the region.

However, Washington has already distanced itself from the Friday Israeli attack and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the US is not involved in the strikes. Ironically, the US was in bilateral negotiations with Iran to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to both sides, wherein Iran would not go down the nuclear weapons path – and the US-led Western sanctions would be progressively relaxed. The last US-Iran meeting was held in Rome on May 23 and the sixth one was scheduled for Sunday (June 15) in Oman, Muscat. Clearly this negotiation process that US President Donald Trump had endorsed has now been stalled and this is a setback.

Ironically, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program got a domestic boost

Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons is an objective that has many advocates, with Israel and some Arab states leading the charge. Paradoxically, the Friday attack will have the opposite effect, with hardliners in Tehran becoming more defiant and resolute in protecting their nuclear enrichment program and related sovereignty.

The trigger for the unilateral Israeli attack was the resolution passed by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) on Thursday (June 12) which declared that Iran is not in compliance with its commitments to the nuclear safeguards – the enrichment restrictions and site inspections that it is obliged to conform to as a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) as a non-nuclear weapon state.

The June 12 IAEA resolution censuring Iran comes after two decades and the voting pattern is instructive about the geo-political orientation among the major powers over the Iranian nuclear profile. The resolution was passed with 19 votes in favor, three against – China, Russia and Burkina Faso – and 11 abstentions. India was among those who abstained.

Israel used this IAEA resolution as the justification for its unilateral action and PM Benjamin Netanyahu described the attack as "a targeted military operation   to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival". He added that this operation named Red Lion would "continue for as many days as it takes to remove the spread"– this being a reference to Iran seeking to weaponize its enriched uranium.

Consensus on nuclear weapons is breaking down

The Israeli action draws attention again to the centrality and complexity of nuclear weapons in the prevailing post 9/11 and post-Ukraine war global security discourse and formulation of national policies. Iraq was attacked by the US in 2003 for nuclear weapons it did not possess and it is now argued that if Kyiev had nuclear weapons, President Vladimir Putin would not have dared to authorize an attack on Ukraine.

Concurrently, the loss of faith in US leadership and President Trump’s impulsive policy lurches have exacerbated the consensual  and equitable management of the WMD domain – now becoming even more complex,  due to  more recent technological  advances in miniaturization  and  AI.

Israel, with PM Netanyahu at the helm, has become more emboldened in pursuing aggressive security policies with impunity and scant regard for international law.  The war of retribution in Gaza after the Hamas terror attack is illustrative. Domestic political considerations are a critical factor in the ‘Israel will act unilaterally’  stance that Netanyahu has adopted and while this may give him personal electoral advantage – the long term implications for Israel and the region are corrosive and will engender greater instability.

Equilibrium within the ‘Nuclear Five’ is under stress

The WMD domain and nuclear weapon capability in particular need sagacious global consensus which remains elusive. Currently the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, who are also the five nuclear weapon states (USA, Russia, UK, France and China) and have accorded a special status unto themselves are unable to manage their own disputes and bilateral discord. The wide spectrum US-China strategic dissonance, US-Russia divergence apropos the management of their respective nuclear arsenals, EU-Russia tension over the Ukraine war and a latent China-Russia anxiety about territoriality are among the many strands that muddy contemporary major power relations.

The Iran nuclear nettle could well become the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. This is an exigency that must be avoided and middle powers such as Germany, India and Japan among others should attempt to infuse some diplomatic malleability into what has become a very brittle regional crisis with grave global implications.

Nobody expects a swift breakthrough over the very tangled Iran nuclear issue - but an irreparable breakdown must not become the default option.