In June 2025, the coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities did more than ratchet up tensions across the Middle East. They delivered an unprecedented blow to one of the pillars of the global order: the nuclear non-proliferation regime (NPT). Yet arguably more troubling than the strikes themselves was the near silence — or even tacit endorsement — from European powers in the face of such an unlawful act. For many observers, this response laid bare the double standards that continue to plague international law. Europe, once seen as the guardian of multilateralism, has now reduced itself to issuing tepid expressions of “concern,” all while echoing support for “Israel’s right to defend itself.” This ongoing passivity does more than edge the NPT toward collapse; it risks incentivizing other states to seek security through far more dangerous avenues, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Preemptive strike or outright aggression
The recent attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were deemed by none other than France’s president as lacking any legal basis. Even so, he was quick to fall back on vague notions of the “legitimacy of countering Iran’s threats” to justify this glaring legal vacuum, ultimately serving the interests of Israel and the United States. Such instrumental interpretations of the law dangerously erode the legitimacy of the global non-proliferation regime. Under international law, there is no provision in the UN Charter or within the framework of the NPT that allows a nuclear-armed state like Israel to launch military attacks against a non-nuclear NPT member under IAEA safeguards. Even the concept of preemptive self-defense applies only when there is an imminent threat, yet U.S. intelligence itself acknowledges that Iran had no near-term plans to build a bomb.
Back in 2022, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s civilian nuclear facilities were met with swift and unequivocal condemnation from the European Union. European leaders at the time rightly declared that striking nuclear plants violated international law and carried catastrophic environmental and human consequences. Yet when it came to the assault on Iran, these same leaders either remained conspicuously silent or issued carefully worded statements that subtly shifted responsibility onto the victim. This glaring double standard does more than undermine trust in the international order; it effectively hands aggressor states a license to repeat such violations.
Iran under scrutiny, Israel beyond oversight
Despite suspending its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, Iran remains a signatory to the NPT and continues to undergo regular IAEA inspections. Israel, by contrast, as a state with nuclear weapons, has never joined the NPT and keeps its entire nuclear program beyond the reach of international oversight. The spectacle of an unbound nuclear power attacking a non-nuclear state that is formally committed to the NPT speaks volumes about the crumbling credibility of one of the last remaining global arms control agreements. The fact that the United States — one of the NPT’s three official depositary states — directly participated in these attacks has sounded alarm bells for many countries that now wonder if the regime still offers them any protection.
One of the immediate consequences of the strikes was a sharp decline in transparency around Iran’s nuclear program. In the wake of the attacks, Iran broke some IAEA seals, moved equipment, and its parliament passed legislation suspending full cooperation with the agency. This has effectively cut off IAEA access to crucial data, including details about enriched uranium stockpiles. Much of the world’s confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s program rested precisely on this inspection regime. Now that trust has evaporated, replaced by an atmosphere of doubt and opacity. This information vacuum could easily serve as a pretext for further attacks or even trigger a regional arms race.
Having come under assault by a nuclear-armed state and finding little meaningful international support, Tehran has once again begun floating the possibility of exiting the NPT. Article 10 of the treaty allows member states to withdraw if extraordinary events jeopardize their supreme interests. Should Iran take that path, it would deal a devastating blow to the global non-proliferation architecture, with security repercussions extending far beyond the Middle East. The case of North Korea, which left the NPT in 2003 and soon acquired nuclear weapons, is a stark reminder of how membership without security guarantees can transform the treaty into a liability for some states’ very survival.
Europe’s responsibility: from passivity to proactive engagement
Europe once played a pivotal role in forging the JCPOA nuclear agreement, and after the Trump administration abandoned the deal in 2018, European powers worked hard to keep it alive. The only real path forward now is to revive diplomacy through a regional non-proliferation framework that rebuilds trust among Iran, the Gulf states, and the broader international community. One promising avenue could be the creation of a regional oversight mechanism modeled after South America’s ABACC, the arrangement between Brazil and Argentina built on mutual inspections and intra-regional confidence-building. Europe is well positioned to sponsor and facilitate such a process. But for this role to be meaningful, Europe must first unambiguously acknowledge that the strikes on Iran violated international law, rather than muddying its stance with evasive language that calls its neutrality into question.
At a time when the prospects for global order look darker than they have in decades, Europe faces a choice: continue acting as a subordinate player, prioritizing American and Israeli interests even at the expense of international law, or step up as an independent, responsible actor committed to multilateralism, the rule of law, and collective security. Restoring the credibility of the NPT and the broader legal system will require political courage, moral clarity, and a steadfast refusal to indulge double standards. Europe must learn from the bitter legacies of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and ensure that the Middle East is not once again sacrificed on the altar of unlawful wars and deadly silences.