Nuclear Apartheid

In the dead of night on June 13, Israeli warplanes lit up the Iranian skies with a multi-pronged, deeply invasive bombing campaign. Dozens of targets were hit: nuclear sites, missile depots, radar stations, and even senior nuclear scientists. The goal, according to Israeli officials, was to “pre-empt” Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In essence, a strike grounded not in response to any immediate attack, but in a presumption of what Iran might do. Yet, what Israel didn’t do - perhaps because it didn’t need to - was offer actual proof that Iran was building a bomb.

Of course, Iran denies it. But what is a sovereign denial worth in this new world where suspicion has become sufficient cause for airstrikes?
Now, less than two weeks later, the United States has entered the fray. In a surprise operation dubbed Midnight Hammer, 125 American aircraft, including B-2 stealth bombers, dropped 75 precision-guided munitions on three Iranian nuclear sites.

The United States insists its strikes weren’t aimed at the Iranian people, only their nuclear capabilities. As if bombs come with disclaimers. President Trump called the attacks “very successful,” and his national security team emphasized they were “limited.” Nothing says restraint like 125 aircraft flying halfway across the world to drop bombs weighing 13,000kg on three heavily fortified sites. But hey - precision is morality now, and missiles are messengers of peace, as long as you hit your target with just the right amount of lethality.

It is imperative to note that no Iranian missiles were launched that day. No declaration of war. No Security Council resolution. Just the same old incantation that has long been used to cloak acts of aggression in the language of fear: The right to self-defense. Israel has invoked it again and again (it’s almost a cliche now!) - when leveling Gaza, when assassinating notable figures across borders, when bulldozing homes to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank. It’s a mantra recited with ritualistic precision, as if repetition itself makes it lawful. But repetition is not justification. And in this latest assault on Iran, the claim of self-defense isn’t just flimsy - it’s fraudulent.

Iran, predictably, called the attacks “outrageous” and a “grave violation” of international law. The United Nations Security Council responded with its usual blend of theatrical concern and paralyzing irrelevance. Once again, the institution built to prevent wars watched, wrung its hands, and produced nothing. Because when the countries doing the bombing are the ones holding the veto pen, accountability is more of a suggestion than a process.

And speaking of hypocrisy, we should dwell for a moment on the chorus of Western allies now chanting, in perfect unison, that “Iran must never get a nuclear weapon.” Britain, France, and, of course, the U.S. - all nuclear-armed states themselves - seem to believe that nuclear deterrence is a privilege of the civilized, not a right of sovereignty. Iran’s actual possession of a bomb, we’re told, would be “unacceptable.” But British submarines with nuclear payloads off the Scottish coast? Très bien. France’s warheads? Secure in their Gallic hands. Israel’s own undeclared arsenal? Best not to talk about it.

I’m neither defending Iran’s regime nor condoning its regional maneuvers. But if nuclear weapons are inherently too dangerous to trust in Iran’s hands, then the same logic should apply across the board. Otherwise, what we’re enforcing is not non-proliferation, but nuclear apartheid.