Beyond Ambiguity: Proposing a Transparent Future for Nuclear Nonproliferation
By Hossein Ajorlou
Senior Researcher of Middle East Security Studies at Nuclear Watch Network
Israel has been involved in military actions in the Gaza Strip and its surrounding areas since October 2023. These actions include alleged acts of forced displacement and attacks on civilian targets such as hospitals, schools, places of worship, international relief centers, and diplomatic buildings. Following its recent military strike on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Consulate General and Iran’s subsequent legitimate defense response, various Israeli sources have issued threats of nuclear retaliation against the country, involving ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and attacks on its nuclear facilities.
Previously, Israeli cabinet ministers and members of the Knesset, including the Minister of Heritage, Amichai Eliyahu, and lawmaker MK Revital Gotliv, mentioned that using a nuclear bomb to obliterate Gaza was considered a possibility. The repeated threats of nuclear strikes on Iran or its nuclear facilities, often attributed to Israeli officials, politicians, and security sources by the media, suggest that the idea of using nuclear weapons against Iran is a constant consideration among some Israeli authorities.
Reports, both official and unofficial, indicate that Israel continues to expand its nuclear arsenal, currently estimated to have between 80 to 400 nuclear warheads. Due to its policy of deliberate ambiguity, Israel does not officially cooperate with international agencies like the IAEA and the Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This lack of transparency leads to speculation rather than informed oversight of safety, security, and nonproliferation based on the principles of global nuclear governance. Furthermore, these actions have hindered the establishment of a WMD- and nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and have exacerbated military competition due to Israel’s significant security conflicts with neighboring countries. Additionally, international law and IAEA safety regulations strictly prohibit military strikes on nuclear facilities due to their potentially widespread hazardous effects. Nevertheless, Israel has conducted several acts of sabotage against Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as those in Natanz, for which Israeli officials have openly claimed responsibility. Another recent operation near Isfahan’s Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), intercepted by Iran’s defense systems, was also a dangerous act, if not outright military aggression. These instances reflect a pattern of Israeli non-compliance with international norms.
These violations demand international accountability and preventive measures to avoid future occurrences. The IAEA, which has remained passive for various reasons, must address Israel’s actions.
According to Article III.B.1 of the IAEA Statute, the Agency must “Conduct its activities in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations to promote peace and international cooperation, and in conformity with policies of the United Nations furthering the establishment of safeguarded worldwide disarmament and in conformity with any international agreements entered into pursuant to such policies”.
In contrast, the IAEA has conducted stringent routine and ad hoc inspections in Iran. The Director-General of the Agency has addressed Iran’s case both within his official capacity and through political commentary outside his duties. Numerous reports by the Agency confirm that Iran has adhered to nonproliferation commitments and has never directly or indirectly threatened to use nuclear weapons.
An impartial view highlights the IAEA’s double standards in the cases of Iran and Israel. It is clear that Israel is deliberately exempted from international accountability, especially concerning the IAEA.
It is time for the IAEA to take action regarding Israel, in line with its obligations outlined in its Statute, which includes bringing the case before the General Assembly and Board of Governors for scrutiny. Furthermore, the IAEA Director-General should handle this case as per the normative role of the Agency and discuss it to ensure other members give it adequate attention. Holding Israel accountable for its nuclear program is the responsibility of the IAEA and other international agencies such as the UNSC.
