In today’s unstable world, NPT is one legal framework that has remained fragile yet vital barrier against unchecked nuclear weapons development. For over fifty years, it has aimed to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy under international safeguards, and ultimately move toward disarmament. Today this structure stands on the brink of collapse due to a dangerous breach by one of the treaty’s leading advocates.
The recent US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan have delivered a powerful blow, not just to Iran’s infrastructure, but also to the very credibility of the international non-proliferation treaty. These facilities were not a secret, in fact they were publicly known, inspected regularly by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and were used for peaceful nuclear activities under NPT guidelines. The US by targeting them has not only undermined its own long-term advocacy of non-proliferation but has legitimized the fears of nations that have observed nuclear restraint.
These strikes have violated more than Iranian sovereignty. They have challenged the principle that countries have a right to civilian nuclear energy, an inalienable right explicitly guaranteed under Article IV of the NPT. Regardless of political tensions with the West, Iran was operating these facilities within a legal framework monitored by the IAEA. Instead the message this sends to countries cooperating with the IAEA is that openness is punished and transparency might make you a target, moreover if states can be attacked while complying with safeguards then what incentive remains to engage in oversight in the first place?
International institutions rely on consistency and transparency. The IAEA particularly functions on trust of the states that its inspections offer both protection and legitimacy. But that trust has been badly damaged by the strikes on Iran’s monitored sites. There have been growing calls in Tehran to expel IAEA inspectors altogether and also consider exiting the NPT. Such move would not only be a turning point for Iran but it might also lead to a broader unraveling of the regional arms control architecture. There has also been debate among the Iranian lawmakers to completely suspend or reduce cooperation with the IAEA, accusing the agency of being manipulated by political agendas of the powerful states.
Iran has also alleged that the IAEA has provided sensitive information about its nuclear sites to the United States and Israel, further fueling suspicions and undermining the agency’s credibility in Iranian eyes. If Iran chooses to exit the NPT, it might not walk alone, other states in the region, predominantly those with strategic anxieties or latent nuclear capabilities may view this as justification to reassess their own commitments.
Moreover these strikes didn’t stop Iran from continuing its nuclear development. They may have delayed aspects of the program, but the technical expertise remains. The political cost of the operation, accelerating calls for nuclear deterrence and sabotaging future negotiations may prove far more damaging than any benefit gained from a short-term tactical advantage.
Many of the non-proliferation experts have deliberated in public forums that this action might push Iran closer to the very outcome the US have claimed to oppose, that includes the decision to pursue nuclear weapons openly, out of fear that nothing can prevent future attacks other than deterrence. The credibility of the US which was once considered a steward of global nuclear non-proliferation is now diminished. The withdrawal of the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, despite Iran’s verified compliance, already raised doubts about Washington’s reliability as a negotiating partner.
These latest military actions have only confirmed the suspicions that the US treats non-proliferation as a selective tool, not a universal principle. This perception is compounded by Washington’s silence on Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, and its continued support for a country that refuses to sign the NPT. When states see the rules applied unevenly, where allies are protected and adversaries punished, regardless of their actual behavior, it erodes confidence in the entire international order.
The bigger risk is that this precedent might not remain limited to the Middle East. If international oversight offers no real protection and legal safeguards are no longer respected then we may see the beginning of a new, chaotic era, the one in which compliance with rules diminishes, trust is eroded and the temptation to pursue nuclear weapons increases. The NPT works only if states believe their cooperation will be respected.
The US decision to act outside that framework sends the exact opposite message. Caught in the middle of this geopolitical storm is the IAEA. Rafael Grossi Director General IAEA has issued dire warnings, calling the situation “a grave threat” to the global non-proliferation regime. He has called for de-escalation and diplomacy, however, has been met with skepticism, especially from Iran, where officials accuse the agency of failing to maintain neutrality. Grossi now finds himself in a difficult position, trying to uphold the authority of an institution whose legitimacy has been seriously damaged.
This is a critical juncture for international security. It must recognized that there is no military solution to attain nuclear non-proliferation. Real progress depends on respect for international law diplomacy and a recommitment to the objectives that made the NPT meaningful in the first place. If the international community wants to prevent Iran or any other state from building nuclear weapons, it must rebuild the foundations of fairness and trust. That means respecting the rights of states that comply strengthening the integrity of oversight mechanisms, avoiding double standards, and not bombing them.
Strikes on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities represent not just a tactical miscalculation, but a strategic disaster for the global non-proliferation regime. By abandoning the very norms it claims to uphold, the United States has handed a potent argument to those who believe nuclear weapons are the only reliable insurance against foreign aggression. If this moment is not reversed through global cooperation and serious diplomacy, we may look back on it as the day the world took a dangerous step toward a new nuclear age, one not of arms control, but of mistrust, insecurity and uncontrolled proliferation.
