On Friday, June 13, 2025, the Islamic Republic of Iran was confronted with a brutal Israeli aggression against its nuclear facilities, military bases, and residential areas. These attacks, carried out in the form of terrorist operations, led to the martyrdom of a number of military commanders, university professors, and ordinary citizens, including women and children, and continued in the subsequent days.

This brazen and aggressive act, conducted under the guise of a "preemptive strike," was not unexpected from a regime that, over the past year and a half, has killed and maimed approximately 100,000 Palestinian citizens in Gaza with complete impunity.

This assault occurred while the Islamic Republic of Iran was in the midst of indirect diplomatic negotiations with the United States to resolve disputes over its nuclear program, with the next round of talks scheduled to take place on Sunday, June 15, 2025, in Muscat.

Israel's aggression against Iran's territorial integrity and sovereignty, a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and the jus cogens norm prohibiting the use of force, has presented a major challenge to the international legal system and the non-proliferation regime, bringing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to the brink of collapse. This aggression has also trampled upon the nuclear safeguards regime concerning the safety and security of nuclear facilities and materials.

The attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran, a member of the NPT whose program has always been under the full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is a flagrant act and a gross violation of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. This attack not only endangered the lives of Iranian citizens but also exposed the region to the grave threat of catastrophic radioactive contamination.

Furthermore, the aforementioned aggression has seriously challenged the Islamic Republic of Iran's ability to fulfill its obligations under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

The groundwork for this act of aggression had been laid in advance. On one hand, the ambiguous and disingenuous report by Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the IAEA, provided a pretext for the Board of Governors to pass a resolution on June 12. On the other hand, the American green light for these attacks, which was complemented by its own direct assault on the Fordow nuclear facility, paved the way for this heinous act.

Continuing this political and unprofessional conduct, the Director General and the Agency not only refrained from condemning the aggression against nuclear facilities and the assassination of Iranian scientists but have also continued to escalate tensions with their questionable actions and provocative statements in the aftermath of the Israeli and American attacks.

These circumstances have raised a fundamental question in Iranian public opinion: When membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and extensive cooperation with the Agency cannot protect the country's peaceful nuclear facilities from military attacks, what is the logic of remaining in a treaty that is supposed to be based on a balance of rights and obligations?

According to Article IV of the NPT, Iran has the inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including the complete fuel cycle. However, in a strange phenomenon in the history of this treaty, while possessing only 3% of the world's nuclear facilities, Iran has been subjected to 23% of all inspections in the Agency's history. This gross imbalance between rights and obligations has seriously called into question the credibility and effectiveness of the NPT.

The attack by a nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT (the United States) and a nuclear-armed non-member regime (Israel) on a country that is itself a member of the treaty and has fully cooperated with its safeguards mechanisms constitutes an ominous and dangerous precedent in the international system.

Both the United States and the Israeli regime bear international responsibility for these actions. Not only must they be condemned in the strongest possible terms, but they must also assume responsibility for paying compensation for the damages inflicted on sites and facilities, as well as for the martyrdom of more than 600 Iranian citizens.

Undoubtedly, the collapse of the international legal order will be catastrophic for the entire world, and the actors who, through their law-breaking and destructive behavior, have caused this collapse will pay the price before others.

While the Israeli regime, by transgressing all international norms, has endangered international peace and security in the most severe manner, and the United States has been part of this war of aggression both by giving a green light to this regime and by attacking Iran's nuclear facility at Fordow, the contradictions in subsequent statements by American officials also made it clear that the Trump administration was not seeking sincere negotiations and had betrayed diplomacy.

Iran, which had never initiated war or aggression and had never left the negotiating table, possessed the legal and legitimate right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this regard, it defended itself against this aggression with all its might, relying on its great national capacities, and inflicted heavy blows on the Israeli regime, to the extent that this regime was forced to propose a ceasefire through the United States and some other countries. Iran's resistance against the Israeli regime's aggressions and its response to the American attack on the Fordow facility proved that Iran will never leave any blow unanswered and forces its enemies to understand the reality that it will never bow down or surrender to any foe.

The Islamic Republic of Iran had repeatedly demonstrated its self-restraint in the face of the Zionist regime's aggressive actions and had pursued the path of diplomacy. Now, the diplomatic path mentioned by some American officials can only be pursued if the United States demonstrates its sincerity and, first and foremost, accepts responsibility for what occurred during the 12-day aggression against Iran. The nuclear doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran remains focused on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, with no intention of producing nuclear weapons. Therefore, if the claiming parties are sincere and serious in their rhetoric about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, diplomacy will not face a dead end. While speculation and debate are ongoing in American political circles about the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, regardless of the scope of the damage, indigenous knowledge cannot be destroyed. The opposing parties must come to the realistic conclusion that a nation cannot be deprived of its inalienable rights under international conventions on baseless pretexts.

The countries of the West Asia region and the Persian Gulf must be aware that the Zionist regime, in line with its strategy of creating an "Israel-centric order," seeks to weaken and fragment all countries in the region. The goal of this strategy is to transform potential rivals and enemies into weak and dependent states that have no choice but to accept the hegemony and serve the interests of this regime.

The consequences of Israel's expansionist and aggressive behavior are extremely dangerous and alarming for the entire region. If the countries of the region do not comprehend the depth of this threat and do not unite to confront it, they will pay a heavy price for this aggression in the future.

The current situation presents a vital opportunity for the Muslim countries of the region to set aside their differences and establish a collective security system based on the region's own internal capabilities and capacities.

Khalil Shirgholami, Vice President for Research and Studies, Center for Political and International Studies

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)