On June 12, amid the ongoing war in Gaza, the security situation in West Asia was further shaken by Israel surprise airstrikes on multiple Iranian military and nuclear facilities. The attack also killed several key Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists associated with the country’s nuclear programme. Iran responded with a wave of retaliatory missile strikes on Israel, leading to a volley of missile and drone attacks by both sides. In a dramatic and unprecedented escalation of hostilities, the United States’ B2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles struck the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites in Iran, on June 22, eliciting an Iranian missile strike on the US’ Al Udeid Air Base airbase in Qatar. As the conflict continues to unfold, fears of a spiralling regional war are rife, calling for urgent international diplomacy.

We invited senior experts from the Asia-Pacific to comment on how the events from the Israel-Iran war are being viewed in the region, specifically the Israeli and US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and what consequences these may have on Iran’s nuclear programme as well as ultimately on the upcoming NPT Review Conference in 2026. Tanya Ogilvie-White, Nobumasa Akiyama, C Uday Bhaskar, Tong Zhao and Salma Malik share their views and concerns in this Pulse series on the Israel-Iran war.

Tanya Ogilvie-White

APLN Senior Research Adviser

This decade, we are witnessing the violent destruction of the rules-based order. First came Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine; then, Israel’s horrific war in Gaza. Now, having failed to stop both conflicts, we are faced with Israel’s escalating war on Iran, aided by the brazen US assaults on Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

To be clear, Iran has been undermining international security for years, including through its nuclear defiance. But the resort to force to try to halt Tehran’s nuclear ambitions is likely to increase nuclear breakout pressures in Iran and further afield, including here in the Asia-Pacific. It puts the NPT in even greater peril, threatening to push it over a cliff edge.

In response, political leaders around the world must make it clear that unbridled military aggression has no place in our interdependent world. They must strongly condemn the recent attacks on Iran for what they are: illegitimate, irrational actions that will backfire on the NPT and the international order, endangering us all. Most importantly, they must reassert their commitment to the UN Charter and be proactive in pushing for peace.

Otherwise, who will stand up for the international rule of law? And who or what will be next on the chopping block? Taiwan?

Nobumasa Akiyama

APLN Senior Associate Fellow

While many argue the illegality of Israeli and American use of force, recent attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities made us revisit the enduring vulnerabilities in the IAEA-centered regime, particularly the grey zones that allow states to operate within the letter – but not the spirit – of the law.

For years, Iran has claimed that its nuclear activities serve peaceful ends. Yet its growing stockpile of 60% enriched uranium – far beyond civilian energy needs – alongside its experiments with uranium metal and suspected work on explosive devices, suggest otherwise. These ambiguities have enabled Tehran to tread a perilous legal tightrope, exploiting loopholes in the NPT and IAEA safeguards to extract diplomatic concessions while avoiding formal violation

The Israeli strike may have temporarily set back Iran’s technical progress, but it has also complicated the strategic calculus. For Iran, the damage could weaken its leverage in future negotiations. It reflects a deeper dysfunction within the nonproliferation regime. The institutional loopholes that permit opaque nuclear activities must be closed, starting with the universal adoption of the Additional Protocol, which strengthens the IAEA’s ability to detect undeclared activities. Without such reform, the system will remain vulnerable to manipulation by states seeking nuclear hedging strategies.

The incident is also likely to inject new tensions into the already fragile NPT discourse. One camp will point to the illegality of Israel’s strike and the hypocrisy of a nuclear-armed state attacking a non-nuclear one. Another will emphasize Iran’s noncompliance with its safeguards obligations and argue that Israel’s actions, however contentious, addressed a mounting proliferation threat. These divisions, sharpened by broader geopolitical rivalries, risk turning the NPT Review Process into another arena for great-power contestation rather than a forum for cooperative restraint.

The Israeli-Iranian episode thus serves as a sobering reminder: as long as gray zones persist, red lines will be crossed – with implications not only for regional stability, but for the future of global nuclear order.

 

Tong Zhao

Senior Fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and APLN Member

Depending on the final battle damage assessment, it remains unclear how significantly the Israeli and American strikes have degraded Iran’s material capacity to develop nuclear weapons. What is clearer, however, is that these strikes will likely complicate the political calculus for any non-nuclear weapons state considering a future nuclear weapons program. The fact that even Donald Trump—a president broadly seen as non-interventionist—was willing to use military force to preempt Iran’s nuclear ambitions sends a deterrent signal. It casts doubt in Tehran about whether a future attempt would go unpunished.

As modern surveillance, reconnaissance, and espionage capabilities continue to improve, it is increasingly difficult to hide a full-scale nuclear weapons programme – encompassing fissile material production, warhead development, and delivery systems integration – in complete secrecy. Iran may question Israel’s and America’s ability to detect and destroy every future nuclear facility consistently, but it must also reckon with the real risk of triggering broader strikes, including those aimed directly at regime change.

The implications extend well beyond the Middle East. For the US allies and partners in Northeast Asia, the Israeli and American counter-proliferation strikes provide political ammunition for adversaries like North Korea and China to justify coercive, even military, measures against any serious move toward indigenous nuclear weapons programs in South Korea or Japan. The same logic applies to Russia in the context of Ukraine or even Poland, should they ever contemplate a nuclear option.

For Iran, the military humiliation may drive it to deepen defence ties with Moscow and potentially Beijing. If Tehran forgoes its nuclear ambitions, it will likely seek substantial conventional military support to shore up conventional deterrent for national and regime security. If it formally pursues nuclear weapons, it will also need substantial conventional military support to withstand future preventive strikes. Either scenario risks deepening bloc confrontation among major powers beyond the Middle East – an ominous development for the global nonproliferation regime.

The strikes also raise unresolved questions about the integrity of the global norm against targeting civilian nuclear infrastructure. At minimum, they cast doubt on the level of protection that civilian facilities enjoy when they are perceived to support military objectives. China, for instance, may grow increasingly concerned about the vulnerability of its two fast breeder reactors in coastal Fujian, which the United States has accused of producing plutonium for potential weapons use. Ideally, such concerns would push countries to enhance transparency and offer credible reassurances about the peaceful nature of their civilian nuclear programs. If they don’t, the existing norm against striking civilian nuclear infrastructure may come under serious strain.

C Uday Bhaskar

Director of the Society for Policy Studies (SPS), New Delhi and APLN Member

The impunity with which Israel and the United States have launched missile attacks on Iran is concerning. These actions are not only irresponsible but also unlawful under international law. These attacks are likely to infuse greater resolve and impetus to the Iranian nuclear quest. Even if there is a change in the existing leadership in Iran, and a new core emerges, both at the level of the Supreme Leader and the IRGC, the nuclear programme, that is akin to the crown jewels, will be nurtured in a covert manner. This may take a few years, but the programme might not be abandoned, the caveat being that if there is a total military defeat of Iran and a new regime is installed – one that is controlled by the United States – Tehran’s nuclear quest will see closure in an irreversible manner.

The attacks, that have now gutted the nuclear nonproliferation regime, will be intensely debated in the upcoming NPT Review Conference. The United States has long projected itself as a guardian of the Global Order and the upholder of the norms that underpin nuclear safety and stability. In a very definitive manner, the US and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites have sullied those norms. And when the guardian turns predator, new norms will emerge and they will neither be equitable nor sustainable.

Salma Malik

Associate Professor at Quaid-I-Azam University and APLN Member

The 12 day Israel-Iran war – as it is being called – has brought forth sobering reflections. Firstly, the pretext of self-defence that Israel has used to justify its aggression and punitive strikes against Iran, with the backing of the United States, sets a dangerous precedent of flouting international law and international norms. On the other hand, however, Israel’s serious violation of international humanitarian law in Gaza and as a non-NPT state with nuclear weapons has not been met with sanctions at all.

The attack on Iran’s key nuclear installations is also a global first, setting a highly dangerous precedent. Would this action drive Iran out of NPT and into building a nuclear weapon? Unlikely, as Tehran appears to be hedging its nuclear program, which, despite facing serious setbacks, does not seem to indicate any interest for a complete roll back, regardless of President Trump’s proclamations.

Countries such as Pakistan, who have not officially recognised the state of Israel and have in the past feared alleged but possible Israeli strikes against them, would now see their fears return, especially in bilateral conflicts with their adversaries who are supported by Israel. In Pakistan’s case, this fear would involve expecting a possible Israeli involvement in a future conflict with India, with rapid fire media feeds stoking further confusion and chaos.

Coercive compellance and collective punishment are being pushed as the new norm through the Israeli-US strikes on Iran. Regardless of which country is being targeted, there is a need for serious international deliberation over these actions, as a norm once set, carries serious consequences for every member of the existing global order. Besides, the age-old notion of engineering a regime change has always proven a costly, futile effort.

The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network. APLN’s website is a source of authoritative research and analysis and serves as a platform for debate and discussion among our senior network members, experts, and practitioners, as well as the next generation of policymakers, analysts, and advocates. Comments and responses can be emailed to apln@apln.network.

Image: Oleksii Liskonih, iStock.