The war might have stopped in a ceasefire, but its tremors continue shaking off the regional order. The unprovoked attack by Israel on the nuclear facilities in Iran and the involvement of the US in the bombing were a unique case of the outright confrontation between two long-standing rival nations. This brief conflict has, however, pricked geopolitical illusions that have existed over the decades and plunged the region into a perilous new balance where the rule of law has collapsed by military logic, where states that do not have nuclear weapons are seriously reproached, and international law is tactfully set aside.

The irony of this confrontation lies in the cause itself: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear enrichment, a right granted to it under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article IV of the NPT grants all signatories the inalienable right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran has persistently argued that its programme is within such parameters, and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provided international support to this argument. However, the US and Israeli attacks on Fordow and Natanz not only infringed upon Iran’s sovereignty but also undermined the very edifice of nuclear law itself.

It is this selective application of international standards that has undermined the legitimacy of the NPT itself. The Islamic Republic had figured that in case of a military conflict, it would face colossal damage, and the same would apply to American status and strength. This bleak thinking, although having civilizational endurance, can explain why Iran has been so persistent despite the stranglehold of sanctions and undermining of its nuclear programme.

Ironically, the legal basis for Iran’s uranium enrichment was not only recognised under the JCPOA but also affirmed in 2012 by the Non-Aligned Movement, where 120........

© Courting The Law