The attack, carried out by Israel, targeted nuclear facilities in Fordow and Natanz, both of which have been under the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These facilities are meant for peaceful uses, safeguarded and subject to inspection.

Their targeting is therefore not just a military action. It is a dangerous breach of international law, including the United Nations Charter, the IAEA Statute, and norms governing the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

While the justification provided focused on concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, such a precedent, military strikes on verified civilian nuclear sites, sets a perilous standard. What would happen if similar measures were implemented in other places? Is the nuclear infrastructure of any state really safe?

Indonesia, like many other countries, has spoken out strongly against the situation. The Conference on Disarmament (CD), a multilateral forum in Geneva that works on negotiating disarmament treaties, discussed this issue immediately. The consensus among many states, particularly from developing countries, was clear: This attack undermines global non-proliferation norms, threatens regional stability and raises the specter of radiological disaster.

It is easy to forget that nuclear facilities are not just political assets, they are complex and sensitive installations. Any harm, whether deliberate or not, could result in radioactive contamination with global repercussions. Its consequences might extend well beyond the immediate area, endangering ecosystems and human lives.

More broadly, this incident places immense pressure on the integrity of the IAEA. The Agency plays a critical role in ensuring the safety and peace of nuclear programs. Despite certain limitations, a system that has contributed to maintaining a degree of global trust and stability for decades is weakened when its authority is undermined, particularly by attacking sites under its safeguards.