Ten days after Operation Rising Lion, the composite and transnational nature of the Israel-Iran conflict is unmistakably clear.
The Israeli strike on June 13, described by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a Fox News interview as “necessary to prevent a nuclear Holocaust,” destroyed part of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and weakened the country’s military capabilities.

The operation was framed as a preemptive strike to prevent Iran from acquiring atomic weapons, especially after the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) reported the presence of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60% at the Natanz nuclear site. Weapons-grade uranium requires 90% enrichment, but once 60% is reached, the technical leap to a usable warhead becomes much shorter. Moreover, this level of enrichment far exceeds the civilian threshold of 3,67% set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.), the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Israel justified its offensive as aimed at blocking Iran’s bomb-making capabilities. However, in recent days a broader interpretation has surfaced: the operation may also be intended, directly or indirectly, to facilitate political change in Iran, weakening the theocratic regime and nudging the country toward positions more accommodating to the West.

The timing of the offensive was highly advantageous for Israel. Over the past year, Iran’s regional allies were progressively weakened: Hezbollah in Lebanon was eroded by international sanctions, internal pressures, and targeted Israeli strikes; Hamas, severely impacted by the Gaza conflict in winter 2024–2025, suffered a sharp decline in military and organizational capacity. Iran’s economic struggles and growing domestic instability have further hindered the ability of the so-called “Axis of Resistance” to coordinate an effective response.

Meanwhile, the causes and implications of the conflict extend beyond Iran’s nuclear history and Middle Eastern rivalries; they also reflect the asymmetry within the international nuclear governance system.
This system rests mainly on the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (N.P.T.), which promotes peaceful use of nuclear energy and is built upon three pillars:

1. Five states – the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France – are recognized as nuclear-weapon states and may legally possess such arms.
2. All other signatories pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons.
3. Civilian nuclear energy is permitted under strict oversight.

Over 190 countries are party to the N.P.T.; Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea (which withdrew in 2003) are not.

The I.A.E.A. ensures compliance through periodic inspections of nuclear facilities. However, while the non-proliferation system aims for eventual disarmament, it lacks binding enforcement mechanisms. No deadline exists for nuclear-weapon states to eliminate their arsenals: instead, they have modernized and expanded them.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the 2024-2025 period saw a sharp reversal of disarmament efforts: nuclear powers upgraded and increased their arsenals, reinforcing deterrence rather than reducing it. It is in this background of poor compliance and regulatory imbalance that Iran’s nuclear trajectory must be understood, punctuated by a key turning point in 2018, when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the J.C.P.O.A.

The J.C.P.O.A. was negotiated in 2015 to address a growing nuclear crisis. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution – which halted Iran’s nuclear cooperation with the West, though it remained a signatory of the N.P.T. – the discovery in 2002 of hidden facilities at Natanz and Arak, allegedly linked to military applications, triggered deeper inspections and United Nations sanctions between 2006 and 2010. Despite this, Iran continued uranium enrichment toward a threshold for weaponization. These tensions led to intense negotiations from 2013, culminating in the J.C.P.O.A. The agreement introduced stringent limits on enrichment, stockpiles, and centrifuge numbers, while additionally implementing enhanced I.A.E.A. inspections in exchange for sanction relief. The J.C.P.O.A. thus emerged as a multilateral and strategic diplomatic instrument, designed to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions in a volatile region. However, in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the agreement undermined its credibility. This prompted Iran to begin violating the accord, effectively eroding the deal.

Meanwhile, the tight U.S.-Israel alliance, with Israel possessing a nuclear arsenal though never formally declared, throws U.S. foreign policy into question. Unlike other non-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, such as India and Pakistan, Israel has benefited from unprecedented military, political, and economic support from the United States, despite possessing an undeclared nuclear arsenal and never having joined the N.P.T. No other state outside the non-proliferation regime has received such implicit legitimization.

In this international context, the Israel-Iran war is unfolding in an environment where diplomacy no longer prevails. Framing the attack as a preventive strike is difficult to justify when two nuclear-armed states target a third country for approaching the capabilities they themselves possess. Instead, it appears embedded in a power-centric logic, where international law plays a secondary role to strategic and economic interests.

The U.S. airstrike on June 22, 2025, targeting three different Iranian nuclear sites, strongly echoes a previous and similarly controversial offensive in which international law was disregarded as a tool for regulating inter-state disputes: the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In this case, the United States justified their military intervention by accusing Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction, a claim later proven to be based on false and highly distorted evidence.
In both cases, the U.S. acted unilaterally, based on a perceived nuclear threat, without definitive proof and outside any multilateral consensus.

In an increasingly interconnected world facing shared global challenges – such as climate change, energy security, and nuclear proliferation – these actions raise critical questions about the limits of unilateralism and the erosion of international legal norms. This is especially significant when carried out by a state historically regarded as a proponent of diplomacy, democracy, and the international rule of law.

Moreover, beyond the officially stated objectives, the Israel-Iran conflict appears to serve deeper ideological and strategic purposes. Notably, the war in Iran has diverted international attention away from the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, just as several European leaders were beginning to voice their first signs of dissent against Israel’s policies. In this light, the timing of the escalation raises critical questions about whether the regional confrontation may also be serving to shield Netanyahu from growing scrutiny over Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories.