Israel’s war of aggression against Iran must end

Download END Info 42 HERE

Israel is the one thermonuclear-armed state in the Middle East. It pre-emptively launched ‘Operation Rising Lion’ against Iran on 13 June. The initial stated aim of this attack was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At the time of the attack, Iran was engaged in protracted negotiations with the United States about its nuclear programme. In addition to Israel’s strikes on nuclear enrichment sites (Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow) and assassinations of nuclear scientists, civilian populations and infrastructure have been targeted in Iran. At the time of writing, Iran has announced more than 220 people killed during Israel’s attacks.

Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide on Gaza continues while Prime Minister Netanyahu – a fugitive from international law – remains at liberty.

Iran responded to Israel’s attack by launching drones and missiles of its own against Israel. Despite censorship news coverage shows that at least some of these weapons have penetrated Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ air-defence system. At the time of writing, Israel reports over 20 casualties and rising. There is little verified information on which Israeli military bases have been targeted, some of which are in residential areas.

Five days on from Israel’s declaration of war on Iran, there are no signs of de-escalation. Netanyahu encourages Iranians to use Israel’s attack as an opportunity to overthrow their government. The Iranian Foreign Minister has stated that: “If the aggression stops, naturally, our reactions will also cease.” [16/06/2025 link]

Israel’s war of aggression must be stopped. Illegal and dangerous attacks on nuclear facilities must cease. Israel’s genocide on Palestine must end. Who will put a stop to Netanyahu’s deadly agenda? The question is an urgent one because Israel’s ‘allies’ have not only utterly failed to uphold international law with respect to Israel’s most recent outrages – part of a pattern already vividly demonstrated in response to Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians – but also look to be setting themselves on a course to actively support Israel and even join arms with Israel in its specious claims of self-defence.

In what follows, we seek to survey immediate reactions to Israel’s attack on Iran, provide some context, highlight what – exactly – is implied when one state claims Israel as an ally and probe the urgent tasks of those who oppose war and seek peace.

International reaction

Responses to Israel’s attack on Iran vary and each response is instructive. Some responses have immediately condemned Israeli actions. Others have not.

The Japanese Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, responded for his government by strongly condemning Israel:

“The use of military means amid the ongoing diplomatic efforts, including US-Iran talks aimed at the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue, is completely unacceptable and deeply regrettable … The Government of Japan strongly condemns these actions.”

The Brazilian government responded likewise, releasing a statement expressing “firm condemnation” and warned that it is:

“watching with great concern the Israeli air offensive launched last night against Iran, in clear violation of the country’s sovereignty and international law.”

The South African government stated its “profound concern” and rebutted Israel’s attempted justification for its aggression:

“Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for self-defence only when a state has been subjected to an armed invasion. Thus, Israel’s public announcement of acting in pre-emptive self-defence is not valid and its actions are once again, unlawful. Anticipatory self-defence is not permitted under international law. Self-defence cannot be based on assumption or anticipation.”

These reactions stand in contrast to statements from other quarters. For example, the British Prime Minister was quick to call for “restraint” but failed to address why such “restraint” was required. The British Foreign Secretary followed this up by stating that:

“This is a dangerous moment & I urge all parties to show restraint.”

[post on X, @DavidLamy, 13/06/2025]

Later the same day Ambassador Barbara Woodward, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN, addressed the Security Council with the following words:

“We are deeply concerned by Israel’s strikes on sites in Iran, as well as the Iranian military action we’ve already seen in response. 

There is a clear risk that this crisis escalates, with serious implications for peace and security across the region and beyond. 

This is in no-one’s interests. 

Colleagues, our first priority must be to prevent further escalation in the Middle East.

We urge all parties to urgently step back, show restraint and reduce tensions.”

[link, emphasis added]

Ambassador Woodward went on to assure the Security Council that the UK was not involved in “this action”. The comments from the British usually ambiguous and apply double standards. Calling for “restraint” in a war of aggression when nuclear facilities are being bombed doesn’t begin to address the severe threats posed to populations and our environment.

Subsequent rounds of media commentary from British government officials have been characterised by assertions that “Israel has the right to defend itself”: the same statement that characterised British governmental responses to Israel’s genocidal onslaught against Gaza.

Less restrained – and not calling for “restraint” at all – was the German Foreign Minister, who is quoted on the German Foreign Office social media channel as follows:

“The situation in the Middle East has escalated dramatically overnight. Israel has carried out targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran is responding with hundreds of drone attacks on Israel. This development is more than alarming. We strongly condemn the indiscriminate Iranian attack on Israeli territory. Iran’s nuclear program violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and poses a threat to the entire region – especially to Israel. Israel has the right to defend its existence and the security of its citizens …”

[post on X, @GermanyDiplo, 13/06/2025]

Foreign Minister Wadephul’s first four sentences are accurate enough, even if they fail to capture the full range of Israel’s attacks on Iran. You might then have expected something other than the three sentences that follow.

The G7 group of nations issued the following statement on 17 June:

“We, the leaders of the G7, reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East.

In this context, we affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.[1]

We also affirm the importance of the protection of civilians.

Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.

We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. [2]

We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza.

We will remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability.” [link]

The G7 is composed of the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom. In addition, the European Union is represented at the table. We have already detailed the Japanese Prime Ministers’ reaction to Israel’s actions: Japan’s government “strongly condemned” them. The fact that no such condemnation appears in this G7 statement indicates that such statements tend to reflect the ‘lowest common denominator’ point of view. It is also the case that louder – and more powerful – voices tend to dominate in global fora such as the G7. Nevertheless, the statement is instructive in two respects.

[1] “we affirm that Israel has the right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.” This is a wilful and deliberate attempt to misrepresent the situation: Israel is the aggressor – it is Israel that attacked Iran and, specifically, Iranian nuclear facilities. There is no mention in the G7 statement of Iran’s ‘right’ to defend itself, though international law surely guarantees such a ‘right’ when faced with a war of aggression. Why no account of Iran’s ‘rights’?

[2] “We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.” Yes, which is why the United States, France, Germany and the United Kingdom were party to the ‘Iran Deal’ along with the European Union: a constructive and effective effort in combination with Iran to ensure that the latter was not working towards nuclear weapon status. Despite Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the ‘Deal’ in 2018, other states continued to participate. But no mention of Israel’s thermonuclear weapons? If it is the case that “Iran can never have a nuclear weapon” why is there not a similar prohibition for Israel? Further, why is the nuclear status of the aggressor nation in this instance not worthy of comment?

Prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities

In a statement immediately following Israel’s attack, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Director General was explicit about the prohibition on attacking nuclear facilities:

“This development is deeply concerning. I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.  Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security.

In this regard, the IAEA recalls the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 [link] and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533 [link], which provide, inter alia, that ‘any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency’. 

Furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that ‘armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked’, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.”

[link]

Like the IAEA, Japan, Brazil and South Africa, the British and the Germans – and everyone between – know full-well that Israel’s attack on Iran has nothing to do with “defence” – “pre-emptive” or otherwise – and everything to do with aggression. Further, they know that attacks on nuclear facilities are prohibited in international law for a very good reason. These very good reasons are made explicit in Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. [link, pages 28-29]

Article 56, paragraph 1 states that such attacks:

“… may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.”

Contrast the reckless formulation of the German Foreign Minister and the deliberate avoidance of even mentioning nuclear installations by the British, with the entirely justified alarm at the prospect of attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine. In the latter case, forthright denunciations of recklessness and stark warnings of the risks were forthcoming from all directions.

Why? Because as a March 2022 Greenpeace study warned:

“In a worst-case scenario, where explosions destroy the reactor containment and cooling systems, the potential release of radioactivity from both the reactor core and spent fuel pool into the atmosphere could create a disaster far worse than [at Fukushima] ... with areas of land hundreds of kilometres from the reactor site potentially becoming inhospitable for decades. Even without direct damage to the plant, the reactors rely on the electric grid for operating cooling systems, on the availability of nuclear technicians and personnel and access to heavy equipment and logistics.”

[quoted in link]

There are currently two operational nuclear reactors in Iran: the Tehran research reactor – supplied by the US under the ‘Atoms for Peace’ plan and operational from 1967 – and the Bushehr power plant – partially constructed by Germany from 1975, abandoned from 1979 and attacked by Iraq, completed with Russian assistance in 2011. Of these, only the Bushehr plant supplies electricity to the grid. In addition, there is a significant network of enrichment, processing and disposal infrastructure throughout the country. Each of these sites will contain a large amount of nuclear material.

Iran’s nuclear status

Unlike Israel, Iran is not a thermonuclear-armed state. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which prohibits it from developing nuclear weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran has granted access to its nuclear facilities by nuclear inspectors and experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency. To reiterate the situation once more: Israel is a thermonuclear-armed state that refuses to honestly and openly acknowledge the fact, refuses to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and refuses to allow IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities.

The United States ‘Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community’ – a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – from March 2025 states with respect to Iran’s nuclear capabilities:

“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not re-authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decision-maker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.”

[link]

The report refers to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s ‘Supreme Leader’, who has consistently issued binding edicts prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons. Both the March 2025 US intelligence report and the long-standing injunction against the development of nuclear weapons are reinforced by the fact that Iran has permitted IAEA inspections of its facilities for an extended period. Further, Iran’s participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or ‘Iran Deal’) and its continued participation in such efforts even after Trump’s unilateral abandonment indicate its ongoing commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian officials were again due to meet with Steve Witkoff, the US President’s special envoy, on Sunday 15th June before Israel’s aggression sabotaged these protracted negotiations.

Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA prompted the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation to issue an ‘Iran Alert’, which opened:

“The Russell Foundation, in common with others, is deeply concerned about the increasing risk of war involving the United States and Iran. A build-up of military forces threatens not only the direct combatants but also the fragile peace of the wider region and the lives of numerous civilians. By repudiating the agreement with Iran in 2018, the United States has violated the carefully constructed deal to ensure Iran remains free of nuclear weapons, notwithstanding their presence elsewhere in the region. Iran was in full compliance with the agreement, as confirmed by successive International Atomic Energy Association inspections, at the time the US withdrew. Such destructive conduct risks proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.”

The ‘Alert’ urged the other participants in the JCPOA – China, France, Russia, Iran, the UK and European Union – to continue their efforts and ongoing efforts within the framework continued. IAEA inspection also continued. US and Israeli sabre-rattling continued alongside.

Enrichment

On 12 June 2025 – just one day before Israel’s attack – the IAEA adopted a Resolution ‘regretting’ Iran’s failure

“to provide the co-operation required under its Safeguards Agreement, impeding Agency verification activities, sanitizing locations, and repeatedly failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations for the presence of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at several undeclared locations in Iran or information on the current location(s) of nuclear material”.

[link]

The Resolution goes on to note “the rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only State without nuclear weapons that is producing such material”. The heavy implication of the Resolution was that Iran was on the road to producing a nuclear weapon and has been seized by some as justification for Israel’s attack.

Yet the IAEA didn’t declare such explicitly and the ‘politics’ of Iran’s enrichment efforts is important as context. The ‘politics’ of enrichment include schematically that it’s a bargaining chip which, alongside Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities; oil and its continued passage through the Straits of Hormuz, is one of the few such chips at Iran’s disposal. The destruction and suppression of Iran’s ‘allies’ in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza has left it with limited regional and international leverage. Considering previous Israeli attacks on Iran and the verbal belligerence of the Trump White House it is perhaps unsurprising – from Iran’s point of view – that the enrichment dials were turned up. Iran had entered renewed negotiations with the US. Now we’ll never know what – exactly – would have come out of these talks, but a commitment to reduce enrichment and allow the IAEA even wider access may have been possible first steps. 

Double standards

That Iran has not yet achieved nuclear weapon status should surely surprise advocates of ‘nuclear deterrence’.

After all, the premise of ‘nuclear deterrence’ is that when faced with a nuclear-armed adversary the only logical course of action to ‘ensure security’ is to get your own nuclear weapons. It should be to Iran’s credit that, when faced with thermonuclear-armed Israel – which has long used its nuclear status to compel regional actors and as a license to get away with literal genocide – Iran has not already chosen to ‘ensure its security’ with nuclear weapons of its own. In fact, there have been a number of occasions over the two decades since Iran renounced nuclear weapon ambitions when it would have ‘made sense’ – in ‘nuclear deterrence’ terms – for it to have developed such weapons. Yet it did not do so, instead signing up to the JCPOA and opening its doors to IAEA inspections.

The same cannot be said of Israel, which comes under little pressure to join the NPT or allow IAEA inspections. Why is that? Why the double standards? Why does Israel’s bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities pass without comment from the British government, for instance, and why does the German government feel free to publicise such acts without criticism – in the face of explicit UN prohibitions against them? What does this imply?

Ally

The particular case presented by the UK’s relationship with Israel is worth examining. Throughout Israel’s ongoing genocide on Palestine, representatives of successive governments repeatedly described Israel as an “ally”. For one state to describe another state as an “ally” implies some form of binding together in an alliance: commonly by treaty or agreement. In democratic states, you would expect the full range of the clauses within such treaties and agreements to be public and open to scrutiny.

Evidence for the existence of such an alliance is plentiful beyond the utterances of “ally” from senior government representatives. For example – and it is just one of many examples – on the 3rd June 2025, Rachel Maskell MP tabled a question to the UK Ministry of Defence:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the last time was that a member of the Israel Defense Forces was trained by the UK armed forces.”

Answering for the Government, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard replied:

“As part of routine Defence engagement with Israel, the UK is currently training a limited number of Israel Defense Forces personnel on UK-based training courses.”

[source: link]

It is important to note the form of words used by the Armed Forces Minister: “routine Defence engagement”. What is the extent of the UK’s “routine” engagements with Israel in this respect? What agreed and binding agreements regulate and dictate these “routine” engagements? Is there a treaty between the UK and Israel covering these – and related – matters? If so, why isn’t it public?

The closest we get to some formal outline of UK/Israel relations comes in the form of two documents published under the previous governments of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. The first, ‘Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office on the UK-Israel Strategic Partnership’ [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-israel-strategic-partnership-memorandum-of-understanding-2021/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-israel-and-the-uk-foreign-commonwealth-development-office-on-the-uk-israel-s], was signed on 29 November 2021. It consists of four paragraphs, only the first of which deals with substantial issues. Paragraph 1(b) – titled ‘Defence and security’ – reads as follows:

“Cognisant of the importance of joint cooperation in the fields of defence and security as part of the UK-Israel partnership, the UK and Israel will continue their direct and professional bilateral development of the strong defence and security relationship within the existing frameworks between the sides.”

What were the “existing frameworks” of a “strong defence and security relationship”? What do these “frameworks” cover? How extensive are they? What is their purpose?

Paragraph 2 of the Memorandum promises that:

“The Participants will hold consultations at Foreign Minister level, with the intention of finalising the Roadmap in 2022. Details on the procedures of the consultations will be decided by the Participants through diplomatic channels.”

The ‘Roadmap’ in question was published on 21 March 2023 and is titled, ‘2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations’. [link]

“We are firm friends and natural allies” reads the last sentence of the opening paragraph of the first section, entitled ‘Vision’. “In November 2021, the British government and the Israeli government, signed a Memorandum of Understanding elevating the UK-Israel bilateral relationship to a strategic partnership”, it continues. “Our strategic partnership is,

“underpinned by extensive security and defence cooperation that continue to safeguard the UK and Israel’s national security ... We remain united in our shared concern towards Iran’s nuclear activities and tackling Iran’s destabilising and malign activity in the Middle East, whether engaged in directly or through proxies and terrorist groups.”

It didn’t take long for the ‘Roadmap’ to alight on Iran’s nuclear activities but there is no comparable mention of Israel’s own substantial activities in this field.

Section 3, ‘Defence and security’ provides further detail:

“The UK and Israel enjoy a close strategic partnership, with extensive defence and security cooperation to tackle shared threats, protect our mutual security interests and develop stronger capabilities. For both the UK and Israel, this is one of the most important defence and security relationships, encompassing a broad range of activities…

                a. Bilateral defence cooperation: the UK and Israel have a strong and evolving defence relationship … It also enshrines ongoing joint training and exercises that will continue to benefit both countries through strengthening military ties.

                d. Iran: we work closely to counter the current threat from Iran, including the IRGC. We will work to ensure Iran never has nuclear weapon capabilities…”

Luke Pollard’s answer to Rachael Maskell would appear to confirm that – despite  a change of government – the ‘Roadmap’ is still in place. We must also assume that the never-published “UK and Israel military co-operation agreement 2020” remains operable. The last time this secret agreement was probed to any degree was in May 2024, shortly before the UK general election. Kenny MacAskill, then the Member for East Lothian, put the question in the context of Israel’s barbarous assault on Gaza. Answering for the then-government, Armed Forces Minister Leo Docherty replied:

“An agreement for UK-Israel military co-operation was signed in December 2020. There are no current plans for the agreement to be updated, but we continually review it to ensure that it remains relevant.”

Why can’t democratically elected representatives read and scrutinise this agreement? Why can’t the public? Why are we limited to parsing memoranda and ‘roadmaps’? What does the agreement say and what are the implications with respect to Israel’s war of aggression against Iran?

Does Germany have a similar, secret agreement? Does France? Who else? Where does Israel’s aggression, its bombardment of nuclear facilities, not to mention its ongoing genocide on Palestine leave her ‘allies’?

For instance, does the secret agreement between the UK and Israel commit the RAF to provide military assistance at some point? Has this point already been reached? If so, how would we know? Are any actions taken under this secret agreement also secret? If so, why? Does no one in government recall the secret international agreements that led in part to the First World War?

Do the terms of the secret agreement imply that the British Prime Minister was informed of Israel’s intention to attack Iranian nuclear installations in advance? If so, what was the Prime Ministers’ reaction? Surely, he would have forcefully reminded his counterpart that such acts are prohibited. If he did or did not, then how on earth would we know? If he wasn’t informed in advance, then – to be blunt – what’s the actual point of a secret defence and security agreement between the UK and Israel?

These are important questions not only because they expose the deadly content of secret agreements and international relations but also indicate that the UK is already propping up, arming and seemingly gathering intelligence for Israel while it commits genocide. Successive British governments have demonstrated themselves to be unwilling or incapable of holding the Israeli government to account. Days after the British Prime Minister announced that he’s preparing for war and increasing spending on nuclear weapons Britain’s thermonuclear-armed ally, Israel, has launched a war of aggression in which it illegally and dangerously targets nuclear facilities.

Stopping the aggression

All of which begs the question: how can Israel’s war of aggression be halted? One indication of a possible starting point comes from the unlikely direction of the British Ambassador to the United Nations. The former British diplomat, Craig Murray, noted the following statement from the Ambassador:

“While the UK voted in favour of this resolution, we wish to clarify that our long-standing position remains that there is no legal obligation on states to ensure respect for international law by third parties.” [link]

What prompted this clarification? The day before Israel launched its war of aggression, the United Nations General Assembly debated Palestine and approved a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire and for “all necessary measures” to be taken to ensure such. The UNGA has debated Palestine many times but, according to Murray, the UK’s explanation of its vote “stuck out like a sore thumb.” Why? Because it suggests that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary “are terrified about future charges of complicity in Israeli war crimes” and that by attempting to disavow responsibility, they seek a chance of protecting themselves.

How does this square with the existence of not only a Memoranda and a Roadmap as well as a secret defence and security agreement? Does not the Ambassadors statement, Murray’s interpretation and existence of these agreements imply that – should they choose to do so – the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary could act to impede not only Israel’s genocide on Palestine but also its war of aggression on Iran? Could not other states with similar agreements do the same?

We haven’t time to see how this might work out in an International Court – if the matter ever arrives in such a court. The situation is too urgent for that. So the tasks are to call things by their proper names – genocide and war of aggression – and to challenge those who fall short; to expose the alliances and demand an end to secrecy; to expose the complicity and demand its end; and to be clear that any war involving a nuclear-armed state runs the risk of developing into a thermonuclear war and that such a war risks the destruction of humanity in total. These tasks can only be achieved with an enormous, creative, confident and urgent peace movement. Already, we have seen hundreds of thousands demonstrate against Israel’s genocide on the streets of Britain, in the US, across Europe and around the world. In opposition to European re-militarisation, hundreds of thousands have demonstrated in Italy and thousands of others have been on the streets in Greece, Spain and elsewhere. It is possible to build enormous demonstrations. It is essential that we cohere into a global movement for peace.

The stakes are high. Time is short. We have much work to do.