aintenance of international peace and security is the cardinal objective of the United Nations Organisations since 1945. Since the 30-year old war that led to the signing of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia in Germany, the world has never known any permanent peace and security. It is not a surprise therefore that the Czar of Russia, Nicholas II, initiated the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 in order to seek ‘the most effective means of ensuring  to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and, above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments.’ The Peace conference was partly inspired by the earlier proposals of Count Muravyov that there should be a limitation on the expansion of armed forces and a reduction in the deployment of new armaments, application of the principles of the 1864 Geneva Convention to naval warfare, and a revision of the unratified Brussels Declaration. 

Still in pursuit of permanent peace, a second international conference again took place in 1907, in The Hague (Netherlands), on the basis of US President Theodore Roosevelt’s suggestion. Even though the suggestion was made in 1904, the war between Japan and Russia impeded the immediate implementation of the suggestion until 15-18 October 1907 when the second peace conference eventually took place. The treaties, declarations and final Act only entered into force on 26 January, 1910. In spite of this, the quest for permanent peace and the efforts made in vain: they did not prevent the outbreak of World War I, nor did the 1919 Peace Treaty of Versailles in France prevent the outbreak of WW II in 1939. 

With the escalation of the Israelo-Iranian misunderstanding from crisis to conflict and to hot battles, it now appears that the UN Charter can no longer guide and sustain the current world order. UN reform has become a desideratum. It is against this background that the exegesis of the international politics of nuclear non-proliferation, which is at the epicentre of the Israelo-Iranian conflict and which is also responsible for the current global disorder and insecurity, should be explained and understood.  

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, generally referred to as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is one thing and the politics of it constitutes another kettle of fish entirely. The Treaty, which was not only a follow-up to the 1963 agreement on non-nuclear tests, was done on July 1, 1968 in Moscow, Russia, for five years. It was renewable. It entered into force in 1970. In 1995, the validity was extended indefinitely and the scope of application has been expanding almost to a universal scale as of today since then.

The NPT was done basically to prevent the spread of nuclear arsenals. It was an agreement done by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS), all of which are also the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, and by the Non-Nuclear Member States of the international community. The signatories not only pledged to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, but also accepted to promote cooperation in the use of nuclear energy only for peaceful projects. The overall expectation was to have a complete nuclear disarmament, hence the emphasis on non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

What is noteworthy at this juncture is that the attitude towards the use of nuclear energy in international relations is clear but the behavioural politics of it is not clear. Put differently, the politics of nuclear non-proliferation is an extension of Cold War politics that emerged following the end of World War II. It originated from ideological rivalry between the United States-led Western world and the Soviet Union-led Eastern European countries. This old rivalry has now been renewed with the new policy orientation of Russia under Vladimir Putin who not only wants to resuscitate the unity of some of the stakeholders of the former Soviet Union, but also wants to prevent the expansion of membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to Russian borders. Russia is vehemently opposed to the admission of Ukraine as a Member of the NATO, but the United States and its European allies are consciously engaging in a forceful extension of the NATO membership to Ukraine, a contiguous neighbour of Russia. They support Ukrainian application for membership of the NATO. 

This development is largely responsible for the Russo-Ukrainian current war, which also cannot be separated, in terms of execution and implications, from the conflict between Israel and Iran in the Middle East. This not only makes the Ukrainian question a war between the US-led NATO and Russia, but also making the Israelo-Iranian conflict more complex and inter-related as both Russia and the United States are similarly engaged in conflicting positions in the Middle East conflict. It also makes the international behavioural objectives very obscure. For instance, can Russia play active parts in the war in Ukraine and in Iran simultaneously? 

While the United States is supporting Israel, Russia is on the side of Iran as evidenced in the position of Russia which has warned Israel not to do anything that has the potential to damage the only functional nuclear site, being built by Russians, Bushehr nuclear power plant. The conflict in Ukraine, which is still ongoing, makes Ukraine to serve more as a theatre for the US-Russian war. The Israelo-Iranian war is another effort being made to turn Iran into a second theatre of Russo-American war. This partly explains why the modern day confrontation between Russia and the United States is now quite different from the collaborative efforts by the two countries to ensure global peace and security in the early 1960s.

It should be recalled that, in 1963, the United States and the then Soviet Union jointly made efforts to promote peace and security by signing the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) which was done and opened for signature on August 8, 1963 and which entered into force on October 10, 1963. The PTBT banned the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water. This PTBT was complemented with the signing of the NPT in 1968. The two accords are not at all the same: while the PTBT is about non-testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, outer space and under water, the NPT is about non-proliferation of nuclear technology and weapons. The NPT wants to prevent the possible destabilisation of the global world order which nuclear proliferation can surely enable. As the PTBT and NPT are different so are the attitudes and behaviour of the Russia of yesterday and Russia of today.

Explained differently, the former Soviet Union and the United States had major ideological differences, but the need to prevent the destabilisation of the international order still compelled the two of them to agree and collaborate on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two of them had developed impressive nuclear arsenals, but the shared interest compelled them not to allow proliferation or development of nuclear capacity and capability by other non-nuclear sovereign states.

This was why agreement was reached that efforts should be made to encourage nuclear disarmament during negotiations with non-nuclear countries and that other non-nuclear states should normally have the right to develop nuclear energy, but only for peaceful purposes. And true enough, this is also why the NPT is predicated on the three main pillars of non-proliferation which is more pronounced and concerning, on disarmament, and on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The problematic to address at the level of the Israelo-Iranian conflict is whether Iran, as a sovereign state does not have the right to develop nuclear capability? If Iran does have the right, which other sovereign state has the right to compel Iran not to acquire the capacity and the capability? What is the position of the United Nations Security Council that has the direct responsibility to maintain international peace and security? 

In the same vein, who says that Israel does not have the right to the principle of legitimate self-defence if Iran believes that Israel does not have the right to existence on its own right as a sovereign State? Iran does not recognise the sovereignty of Israel and actually closed down its embassy in Israel in 1979 following the Iranian revolution. This fear of non-recognition might be largely responsible for Israel’s policy pre-emptive strikes, which stricto sensu, do not fall under the application of the principle of legitimate self-defense. It is against this background that the dimensions of the Israelo-Iranian conflict are hereinafter explicated. 

On June 16, 2025 Israel launched a pre-emptive bombing attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and media agencies in the belief that Iran had crossed the prohibited nuclear red line. But pre-emptive attacks for what? One probable reason might be intelligence reports, credible or otherwise. Another consideration may the rise in the status of Iran in the Middle East, especially not being an Arab country like Turkey is not. A third rationale may also be that Iran has the capacity to serve as a counter-weight to the United States in the region, on the one hand, but also to Israel, on the other. 

Iranians do not speak Arabic but speak Persian or Farsi. They are religiously unique. They share cultural and ethnical identities. For Iran to become powerful enough to be able to challenge the United States or the US-supported Israel as the policemen of the world and in the Middle East, several thought-provoking issues, cannot but be raised. Additionally, the United States cannot but be very hostile to this situational reality, being a strong ally of Israel, an arch enemy of many Arab countries that want the State of Israel pushed to the sea side. It is important not to forget that Israel is the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East. This fact cannot be in the interest of the United States to allow an Iran that will become another nuclear power to rival Israel to have nuclear weapon. This is the problematic around which the politics of the conflict should be further investigated. The politics is to empower supporters of the West with nuclear power and prevent opponents from having access.

In this regard, who really is the first aggressor: Israel or Iran? The two countries have been at a logger head before the June 16 incident. The major dynamic of the previous incidents is the place of nuclear weapons in the foreign policy calculations of Iran and Israel. Israel has been allowed to acquire nuclear capability but that right is being denied to Iran. Both Israel and Iran are not parties to the NPT, meaning that they cannot be accused of flouting the obligations created by the Treaty. The NPT cannot be rightly said to have created any peremptory norms of international law for them. Even if it does, neither Israel nor the United States is on record to be a regular respecter of the rules and obligations of international law. When Israel or the United States violates international law, Iran cannot be expected to fold its arms. 

A very good and relevant illustration is the withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), done in Vienna on 14 July, 2015, and generally referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The Deal was an agreement done by Iran, on the one hand, and the P-5 of the UNSC with Germany and the European Union as witnesses, on the other. All the parties to the Deal agreed that Iran had been very faithful to the implementation of the obligations created by the Deal for Iran. Only the United States did not agree and that decided to withdraw from the Deal. And without doubt, the US withdrawal eventually gave more room to Iran to fast track its nuclear power project as a result of reduced, if not lack of, control by other signatories to the Deal. The main purpose of the JCPOA was to bring the Iranian nuclear project under control, especially under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA control is an issue on its own.

China, for instance, believes that Iranian nuclear project efforts have so far been for peaceful purposes, and therefore, China is opposed to any ‘armed attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities,’ and that Iran’s ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty rights should be respected.’ And perhaps more notably, in the current conflict between Israel and Iran, other notable stakeholders argue that Iran has not developed nuclear weapons. US intelligence agencies also made the point that Iran is far from developing nuclear weapons for now, but President Donald Trump never believed the intelligence agencies of his own country. As quoted by the spokesperson for Donald Trump, ‘the President’s top priority right now is ensuring that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons and providing peace and stability in the Middle East.’ 

In other words, the United States does not want a nuclear weapon status for Iran. This is the basic problem that the world is currently faced with. Will the United States eventually enter into the war in order to ensure the total destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities? White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, explained Donald Trump’s position thus: ‘based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I (Donald Trump) will make my decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks.’ The United States involvement should not be seen simply in terms of deployment of US troops. The United States has actually been part and parcel of the various Israeli decisions on aggressions regardless of declaratory policy statements.

The non-preparedness of the EU countries to accept Iran as nuclear-weapon State is part of the complication of the problem. This again partly explains why the BRICS has been created to serve as a counter-weight to the Euro-American world order. Why the BRICS is trying to introduce an alternative to the current world order, and also why an increasing number of Third World countries are in support of the BRICS agenda. This means that the interests of Europe and America are being threatened beyond the Middle East.  

In the same vein, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been more emphatically aggressive: Iran ‘must not, it cannot have nuclear weapons. That is the purpose of Israel’s action.’ In other words, does killing the people of Iran, regardless of the high number, mean anything to Israel for as long as Iran is not allowed to have nuclear power? What really does the statement of the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, mean when he advised the warring parties ‘to give peace a chance’ and that ‘the world is watching with growing alarm? Why are the Israelis, with the United States cover, doing the battles directly and not the UNSC-led United Nations that is in charge of the maintenance of international peace and security? Can there ever be peace, or can peace ever have the chance to exist?

China and Iran have a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership accord. China is the biggest buyer of Iranian crude oil. It cannot be a surprise therefore to expect that China would support Iran. Following the Israeli strikes on Iran on June 16, 2025, the Chinese Ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, accused Israel of violating ‘Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity.’ He asked Israel ‘to immediately cease all military adventurism and avoid further escalating tensions.’ In the words of the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, ‘if the conflict escalates further, not only will the conflicting parties suffer greater losses, but regional countries will also suffer greatly.’ In short, China wants the immediate de-escalation of the stalemate.

Additionally, several Arab countries, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Iraq, firmly condemned Israel’s alleged unilateral airstrikes on Iran. In the words of Iraq, for example, ‘the Government of the Republic of Iraq strongly condemns the military aggression launched by the Zionist entity against the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran… This act represents a blatant violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security.’  

The African Union, especially Nigeria, called for the adoption of diplomacy over the use of force. This is also the position of Kenya. 

Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, made his country’s policy stand very clear in Geneva during his meeting with the EU leaders: ‘under the current circumstances, and as the Zionist regimes attacks continue, we are not seeking negotiations with anyone, especially not the United States on this matter. It is the Americans that are seeking negotiations. We have no discussions with the United States which we see as a partner.’ More significantly, he said that Iran is in ‘a legitimate state of self-defence and this defense cannot and will not stop. We have no discussions with the United States… We have always had dialogue with the Europeans and have discussed various issues with them. Even now, if they have something to say, we are listening. We are not ashamed of defending the rights of the Iranian people, and we are not avoiding anyone. And perhaps more interestingly, Iran makes it also clear that she is not a party to the NPT, implying that, under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, or sanctity of agreements, her international responsibility cannot be called to question. 

From the foregoing, condemnations of Israeli strikes and support for Israel or Iran have not addressed the problematic of nuclear weapons development and the principle of legitimate self-defense. On nuclear weapon development, should Israel be allowed to have and sustain nuclear capability because of alleged trustworthiness, and Iran will not be allowed to having the same right? Both Israel and Iran have their proponents and opponents. Russia supports Iran and has cautioned Israel on the need for the safety of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran where several Russian specialists are working. Russia says that attacking the plant will be ‘beyond evil,’ and the world’s worst nuclear disaster beyond the 1986 Chernobyl experience in Soviet Ukraine. On legitimate self-defence, who really is the first aggressor? Considering profound causal factors, if Iran does not want Israel to exist, whatever Israel does to ensure it exists rightly falls under Israel’s legitimate self-defense. In terms of immediate, unprovoked, accidental or coincidental factors, Israel is the first aggressor, because Israel bombarded the Iranian embassy on April 1, 2024 in Damascus, Syria killing 16 people. The June 16, 2025 attack by Israel is another case. Consequently, the problematic to address is whether the non-recognition of Israel as a State confers the right of regular preventive bomb attacks on Iran. Is legitimate self-defense not meant to be a response to an initial attack? More important, why should some countries have nuclear power and others cannot? Promotion of injustice and unfairness cannot enable peace.