Aggression against Iran threatens nuclear nonproliferation ideals — Russian MFA

Lead

Recent US and Israeli military strikes on Iran have drawn sharp criticism from Russian officials and nuclear nonproliferation experts, who warn that the attacks threaten the global nonproliferation regime and violate international law. The strikes, which reportedly targeted nuclear and civilian facilities, have also reignited accusations that Washington has failed to uphold its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Coverage Comparison

Russian state news agency TASS has prominently featured statements from senior Russian diplomats condemning the strikes. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov described the attacks as "unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal," and said they dealt "a heavy blow" to the NPT and the IAEA safeguards system. State Secretary and Deputy Foreign Minister Yevgeny Ivanov similarly characterized the strikes as "aggression" that runs counter to the interests of the "global majority," drawing parallels to past Western military interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

Al Jazeera, meanwhile, has highlighted the perspective of Alicia Sanders-Zakre of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), who argued that military action cannot achieve nonproliferation goals and warned that attacks on nuclear facilities risk long-term radioactive contamination, which is prohibited under international law.

Key Claims

• Aggression and International Law: Russian officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, have called the US and Israeli strikes on Iran "unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal," asserting they violate international law and universal morality. This claim is echoed by State Secretary Yevgeny Ivanov, who linked the strikes to a broader "destructive line pursued by the West using brute force methods."

• Threat to Nonproliferation Regime: Ryabkov stated that the attacks have "severely tested" the stability of the NPT and the IAEA safeguards system, calling them "an egregious manifestation of a course aimed at abusing the nuclear nonproliferation regime." This view is supported by ICAN's Sanders-Zakre, who said military action cannot achieve nonproliferation goals.

• US Non-Compliance with NPT: Iran's Permanent Mission to the United Nations posted on X that the US has been "in clear non-compliance" with its nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament obligations under Articles I and VI of the NPT since the treaty came into force in 1970. The mission called the US "the No. 1 proliferator" of nuclear weapons and said Washington should not be given "any cover for its outrageous and hypocritical behavior."

• Strikes in Israel's Interests: Ryabkov claimed the strikes were carried out "primarily in the interests of Israel, a state that has historically ignored the NPT," while the US, as a depository of the treaty, supported the aggression. He also alleged that the attacks occurred under the cover of negotiations aimed at coordinating voluntary measures by Iran to confirm the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.

• Risk of Radioactive Contamination: Sanders-Zakre warned that attacks on nuclear facilities risk long-term radioactive contamination and are prohibited under international law, a point not addressed in the Russian statements.

Perspectives

Russian Official Position: Russian diplomats frame the strikes as part of a pattern of Western aggression that undermines international law and the NPT. They emphasize the illegality of the attacks and their detrimental impact on global nonproliferation efforts, while also highlighting Israel's historical disregard for the treaty.

Iranian Government View: Iran's UN mission accuses the US of decades of non-compliance with the NPT, portraying Washington as a hypocritical proliferator that has no moral authority to enforce nonproliferation norms. The mission's statement aligns with Russian criticism but focuses more on US treaty violations.

Expert Opinion (ICAN): Alicia Sanders-Zakre of ICAN offers a non-governmental perspective, stressing that military action is ineffective for achieving nonproliferation and that attacks on nuclear sites carry severe environmental and legal consequences. This viewpoint underscores the humanitarian and ecological risks, which are less prominent in the official Russian statements.

Western Perspective (Not Directly Represented): The provided sources do not include direct responses from US or Israeli officials. However, the framing of the strikes as "aggression" and "illegal" by Russian and Iranian sources suggests a contentious international debate over the legality and justification of the military action.