How the attack on Iran has damaged NPT

Listen to article

Rather than helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, the Israel-initiated 12-day war with Iran, which the US also joined, has seriously damaged the longstanding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has thus far helped prevent 191 countries from joining the dangerous race to build nuclear arsenals, but the underlying rationale of this treaty has now been undermined.

The UN formulated the NPT in the late 1960s to help avert the spread of nuclear weapons and simultaneously allow countries to harness the power of nuclear fissions. Iran signed the NPT in 1968, becoming one of its original members.

While Iran has other sources of energy, it wants to reduce reliance on fast-depleting oil and gas reserves. Being able to harness the potential of nuclear energy has also become a matter of national pride for the ostracised state. Western, and other Middle Eastern powers, however, have been very suspicious of Iran's desire to harness nuclear power, fearing that its illiberal regime will use this knowhow to build a covert nuclear weapons program.

Iran has submitted to IAEA inspections, despite being heavily sanctioned. The IAEA has suspected Iran to be in non-compliance a few times. However, Iran's trouble with the IAEA has arisen amidst a persistent Israeli shadow campaign to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme. The April 2021 attack on the Natanz enrichment facility, widely attributed to Israel, damaged underground centrifuge halls and disrupted Iran's enrichment timeline. Earlier incidents included the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack and the targeted assassinations of key Iranian nuclear scientists.

After years of negotiations, Iran did agree to a nuclear deal with the US in 2015, which aimed to drastically limit Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, the first Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from this deal, and reimposed harsh sanctions.

After the Israel-US attacks on Iran this past month, Tehran has now suspended cooperation with IAEA. If Iran withdraws from NPT, it would not be legally prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor would it be compelled to accept international monitoring.

Iran has not been an ideal NPT member state. Its intentional opacity, its ambitious ballistic missile programme and its use of regional proxies have been legitimate causes of international concern. However, Iran is justified in claiming that the rules-based international order is selectively applied.

Despite possessing dozens of nuclear warheads, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity whereby it refuses to confirm or deny its arsenal. Yet, Israel enjoys immense support and aid from the US and European powers, despite its hostilities within the occupied territories, and in the broader neighborhood. This stands in stark contrast to the transparency demanded of Iran.

The Israel-US attacks on Iran have damaged the NPT's credibility, which will have implications that reverberate far beyond Iran. The NPT is now widely perceived as failing to protect its signatories, which is increasing the risk of it losing legitimacy altogether. Other states might question whether their own restraint is worthwhile, especially if regional rivals are armed or shielded by powerful allies. For such states, owning nuclear weapons may seem a much more attractive option to help them avert external threats.

Even the repressive and otherwise ostracised regime in North Korea has become immune to external aggression due to its nuclear capabilities. Conversely, Ukraine dismantled its Soviet-era arsenal in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees from the UNSC and the results of that are evident in the current aggression by Russia.

Lasting proliferation compliance cannot be coerced. It must be fostered through credible diplomacy backed by robust verification mechanisms. Iran needs to be brought back to the negotiating table, and Israel must be restrained from further misadventures against Iran in the name of making the world a safer place, when in effect its actions produce the opposite impact.