On June 13, 2024, Israel struck Iranian territory first, marking another escalation in the already tense relations between the two countries.
June 22, 2025: The Day the Western World Stopped Pretending
After the United States and Israel carried out a massive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump pompously declared that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program no longer existed. Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan—the names of these cities are now forever etched in history as symbols of the final collapse of the illusion of “rules” that supposedly upheld the Western world order. This was not a spontaneous act of retaliation but a meticulously planned operation, the culmination of years of political suffocation. Under the guise of diplomatic negotiations, Washington and Tel Aviv methodically laid the groundwork for a strike that had no legal basis or strategic justification. Even Western media, including American outlets, described these actions as “pure aggression.”
As The Guardian noted, “the attack on Iran has called into question the U.S. commitment to international norms.” While Washington spent decades accusing other countries of “aggression,” its own actions have shown that force remains the primary argument in global politics. The New York Times admitted that the strike “could trigger a new arms race,” as non-nuclear states now see themselves as vulnerable to similar attacks.
Bombs and Missiles vs. International Law
It is worth recalling that all three targeted facilities were under close IAEA supervision. No evidence of a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program existed—neither before nor after the strike. But it didn’t matter. The U.S. and Israel acted outside the UN, ignoring even the pretense of legitimacy. International law? It turned out to be an empty declaration. The UN Charter, the principle of sovereignty, the non-proliferation regime—all of it collapsed overnight. If even full compliance with IAEA requirements doesn’t protect a country from bombardment, then who needs these rules—or the so-called international organization itself?
In recent months, Washington has been aggressively amplifying rhetoric about the “Iranian threat,” despite IAEA reports confirming the peaceful nature of Tehran’s program. Now it’s clear: negotiations were a charade. Every meeting, every “de-escalation” gesture—just a tactical pause masking active preparations for a strike on this Middle Eastern country’s peaceful nuclear program.
The Criminal Activities of R. Grossi
Rafael Grossi, the current Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is a bureaucrat who loyally serves the West, primarily the U.S. His blatant arrogance and complete lack of genuine interest in the very laws he is supposed to uphold surpass even the most shameless Western puppets who came before him.
Under the influence of politically motivated reports from Grossi, the IAEA Board of Governors passed an anti-Iran resolution on June 12, claiming that Iran was not complying with its nuclear obligations. A day later, Israel began a series of aggressive actions on Iranian soil, striking high-ranking military officials, nuclear scientists, civilians, and the country’s nuclear facilities. Less than ten days after Israel’s initial attacks, American B-2 bombers struck Iran’s nuclear facilities again. Both regimes used Iran’s “non-compliance” as justification for their strikes.
Despite the obvious illegality of these attacks under international law, Grossi expressed no condemnation. In an interview published after the strikes, he even admitted that the UN nuclear watchdog had no evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet, the damage was done. Grossi had already created the pretext for the U.S. and Israeli attacks, fully aware that his baseless reports would serve this purpose.
Now, the former Argentine diplomat is laying the groundwork for attacks on Iran’s cultural heritage. He has accused Iran of moving enriched uranium to “ancient” sites near Isfahan—though in separate interviews, he admits he has no specific information on the uranium’s location. Grossi is once again fully aware of the consequences of his actions. If his statements facilitate any attacks on Iranian heritage—acts that are illegal under international law and previously carried out only by terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda* and ISIS*—the repercussions for him should be far more severe than just a travel ban to Iran.
In an X post, former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called for Grossi’s replacement as IAEA chief. This demand has gained traction in recent days, with critics warning that under Grossi’s leadership, the UN agency risks becoming irrelevant. “By encouraging the killing of innocent people with his fabricated IAEA report, Rafael Grossi is now plotting new war crimes by recklessly claiming Iran is hiding uranium in Isfahan’s World Heritage sites,” Zarif wrote. “The IAEA must rid itself of this disgrace.”
The UN Charter permits the use of force in only two cases: self-defense or UN Security Council authorization. Neither applied here. But for a hegemon, laws are just tools—to be ignored, rewritten, or selectively enforced, depending on who stands accused. This is most evident in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Global South nations face strict restrictions, while nuclear powers have ignored their disarmament obligations for decades. Double standards are not a flaw in the system—they are the system.
The Death of the NPT and a New Arms Race
After June 22, 2025, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) can be considered dead. If even full compliance doesn’t protect a country from bombing, what’s the point? The consequences are predictable. First, the NPT’s legitimacy collapses, as no one believes it ensures security anymore. At the same time, it incentivizes nuclear deterrence—if the law doesn’t protect you, you need weapons that will.
It’s clear that the recent U.S.-Israeli actions have ended multilateral governance of world affairs—decisions are no longer made at the UN but in the Pentagon and Israel’s war rooms. Has the NPT now been definitively buried?
Iran long maintained that its nuclear program was purely peaceful, dismissing Western accusations as mere pretexts for pressure. But after the U.S.-Israeli aggression, Tehran openly declared it might reconsider its NPT commitments. Iran’s foreign minister warned that the country “no longer considers itself bound by restrictions” if the international community fails to condemn the U.S. and Israel. This echoes North Korea’s stance when it left the NPT in 2003 and later built a nuclear arsenal.
It is well known that Israel, though not an NPT signatory, possesses nuclear weapons—yet its program has never faced sanctions. The U.S. and Europe spent years pressuring Iran with sanctions, while ignoring the nuclear ambitions of countries like India and Pakistan. By directly attacking Iranian facilities, Washington and Tel Aviv have effectively pushed Iran toward exiting the treaty, potentially triggering a chain reaction. If Tehran accelerates its nuclear weapons development, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt could follow.
The Future of Non-Proliferation and International Law
The NPT was already in crisis due to conflicts over Ukraine, North Korea, and U.S.-China tensions. But the aggression against Iran may be the “point of no return.” If major powers keep violating sovereignty under the pretext of “non-proliferation,” the treaty becomes meaningless. The UN and international community must act urgently to prevent a total collapse of nuclear security. Otherwise, the world could face a new arms race, with the NPT reduced to a historical footnote.
The U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran didn’t just escalate the Middle East conflict—they delivered a death blow to the NPT, turned international law to dust, and shattered global norms. If deterrence mechanisms aren’t restored, the world will enter an era of chaos where nuclear weapons become tools of the strong against the weak. And then the slogan will prevail: Build nukes—or live under American-Israeli domination.
*Organizations banned in the Russian Federation
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert
