The recent unprovoked attack by Israel on Iran, codenamed “Operation Rising Lion,” no doubt marks a dangerous and reckless escalation in an already volatile region.
In the early hours of June 13, 2025, Israel launched large-scale airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, military installations, and the private residences of senior officials, killing top military commanders and nuclear scientists.
This brazen act of aggression, carried out without any immediate provocation, threatens to ignite a catastrophic full-scale war with dire consequences for regional and global security.
Israel’s justification for this assault—that Iran was close to producing nuclear weapons—cannot mask the reality that this was a preemptive strike that bypassed diplomatic channels and international law.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had only recently declared Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations, but the appropriate response should have been renewed negotiations, not unilateral military action. Instead, Israel chose to bomb sovereign territory, killing both military personnel and civilians, and further destabilizing the Middle East.
What makes this act even more egregious is Israel’s possession of an uncountable nuclear arsenal, estimated to be between 90 and 400 warheads, which it has steadfastly refused to subject to any international scrutiny or inspections.
This deliberate opacity stands in stark contrast to the rigorous monitoring and restrictions imposed on Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s refusal to allow transparency exposes a glaring double standard in global nuclear governance—one that the United States and its allies have tacitly accepted and even enabled.
The United States, in particular, has effectively granted Israel a license to kill and attack any sovereign nation in the region without oversight or accountability.
This de facto immunity emboldens Israel’s military adventurism and undermines international law. While other nations in the Middle East have been prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and even military threats, Israel continues to maintain and expand its nuclear arsenal with impunity.
The timing and scale of Israel’s attack reveal a blatant disregard for peace and stability. Over 200 Israeli aircraft dropped more than 330 munitions on around 100 targets, including critical nuclear sites and residential areas in Tehran. Such overwhelming force against a nation with which Israel is not currently at war is an act of blatant aggression that risks dragging the entire region into a wider conflict, potentially drawing in global powers and disrupting vital oil supplies.
What is equally reprehensible is the role of the United States and the European Union in this crisis. Despite Israel’s clear violation of international laws, these Western powers have once again demonstrated their double standards. While they vocally condemn Iranian missile attacks on Israel and call for restraint from Tehran, they have tacitly supported or turned a blind eye to Israel’s offensive strikes on Iran.
This hypocrisy undermines their credibility as honest brokers of peace and fuels resentment across the Middle East.
The U.S. administration’s prior knowledge and tacit approval of Israel’s plans, as indicated by the communication between Israeli and American officials before the attack, further implicates Washington in this reckless escalation. The U.S. claims to pursue diplomacy and non-proliferation, yet it facilitates and enables Israel’s military adventurism, which only inflames tensions and increases the risk of war.
European leaders, while condemning Iranian missile attacks on Israel, have failed to equally condemn Israel’s disproportionate and unprovoked military actions against Iran.
Their selective outrage reveals a dangerous bias that prioritizes Israel’s security at the expense of regional stability and international law.
This uneven approach not only emboldens Israel but also alienates other actors in the region, making peaceful resolution more elusive.
The consequences of Israel’s attack are already evident. Iran has vowed retaliation, and the Iranian population is gripped by fear and anger, with many calling for a strong response. The risk of a spiral of tit-for-tat violence is high, threatening to engulf neighboring countries and exacerbate sectarian and geopolitical divides across the Middle East.
Moreover, Israel’s claim that it is defending not only itself but also its Arab neighbors is disingenuous. The attack undermines any prospect of regional peace and cooperation, instead hardening attitudes and encouraging militarization. The rhetoric of existential threat is being used to justify actions that will only make Israel less secure in the long run.
The international community must unequivocally condemn Israel’s unprovoked aggression. Military strikes on another sovereign state without a UN mandate or clear self-defense justification violate the principles of international law and set a dangerous precedent.
The world cannot allow such acts to become normalized under the guise of preemptive defense.
Furthermore, the U.S. and EU must end their double standards and apply consistent principles to all parties in the Middle East conflict. True peace requires impartiality and respect for sovereignty, not favoritism that fuels cycles of violence. Their failure to do so only undermines their stated goals of stability and non-proliferation.
The attack also highlights the urgent need for renewed diplomatic efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program through dialogue rather than force. Military solutions have repeatedly failed to bring security; instead, they have perpetuated conflict and suffering.
The international community should redouble efforts to revive negotiations and enforce agreements fairly.
Israel’s reckless strike on Iran is a stark reminder that unilateral military actions in pursuit of national security often lead to greater insecurity for all. The loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and heightened tensions are a heavy price to pay for policies driven by fear and suspicion rather than reasoned diplomacy.