– Mohammed Talha Siddi Bapa
When Israel launched Operation Rising Lion – a surprise and wide-ranging air assault on Iranian nuclear and military facilities on June 13, – the world braced for impact. Now, that impact has arrived. Iran’s response, code-named Operation True Promise, has not only matched Israel’s provocation but pierced the very illusion of invulnerability long projected by the Israeli military-industrial complex.
A pivotal moment in this escalation was captured on camera and broadcast globally: an Iranian missile breaching Israel’s Iron Dome and striking the Israeli Defence Ministry complex in central Tel Aviv, near the iconic Marganit Tower. The footage, aired by NDTV and other outlets, shows the missile slipping past the interceptor system and exploding near the Kirya, Israel’s equivalent of the Pentagon.
Breach of a Fortress
The Iron Dome has long symbolised Israeli technological supremacy – its effectiveness repeatedly touted as a shield against regional threats. Yet this breach exposes a troubling reality: no system is fool-proof when facing a well-orchestrated, high-volume assault. Iran’s coordinated launch of over 100 drones and missiles, many of them simultaneously, overwhelmed the defence grid, proving that sheer quantity and precision can overcome even the most advanced defence architecture.
While Israel intercepted a majority of the incoming projectiles, several penetrated, including the one that struck central Tel Aviv. The symbolic weight of this strike is as significant as its physical damage. Iran has sent a message: it will not absorb such aggression in silence.
Escalation Defined
Israel’s initial attack was billed as a pre-emptive strike – targeting alleged nuclear weapons development sites at Natanz, Fordow, and ballistic missile silos. Yet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had not reported Iran crossing any weapons-grade enrichment threshold. Iran remains a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and subject to IAEA oversight. Conversely, Israel is not a signatory, refuses inspections, and is widely believed to possess at least 80 nuclear warheads. [SIPRI Yearbook 2024: Israeli Nuclear Weapons Estimate]
This disparity – unacknowledged by most Western capitals – underscores the skewed geopolitical order.
Double Standards on Global Display
The United States, as expected, endorsed Israel’s right to “self-defence,” even as Tel Aviv initiated hostilities with a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation’s soil. Secretary of State Robert Marshall praised the Israeli operation as “measured and necessary,” offering full diplomatic cover without a single mention of international legal violations.
Contrast this with Washington’s approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: breathless condemnations, sanctions, and appeals to the sanctity of sovereignty. The same principle – the inviolability of borders – is suspended when the violator is a strategic ally. Such selective moral outrage erodes the credibility of the so-called “rules-based international order.”
Int’l Reactions: A Divided Chorus
- United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the escalation and warned of “catastrophic regional consequences.” He called for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
- Russia and China denounced Israel’s attack as unprovoked and unlawful, urging the UN Security Council to launch an inquiry.
- European Union states issued vague calls for “restraint” but failed to acknowledge the illegality of Israel’s first strike.
- India, while not assigning blame, stated it is “deeply concerned by the ongoing escalation” and called for “maximum restraint and urgent return to dialogue.” The Ministry of External Affairs emphasised the need to avoid further destabilisation in West Asia, adding that India is “closely monitoring the safety of its nationals in the region.”
- Global South nations, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Türkiye, and South Africa, condemned the Israeli action outright, with several labelling it a “breach of international law”.
- IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned that attacks on nuclear facilities could trigger “uncontrolled radiological disasters”, although no such incident has been reported so far.
UN Diplomacy Halted
In a direct fallout, the UN-sponsored peace conference on the two-state solution, scheduled for June 17 in New York, was postponed indefinitely. Diplomats cited “security concerns and deteriorating regional stability.” Once again, the Israeli-Palestinian issue becomes collateral in a wider war – with no accountability for those who derail peace processes.
A Region on Edge
The threat of further escalation is tangible. Hezbollah in Lebanon is reportedly on high alert. Iraq and Syria fear spill-over strikes. Oil markets have begun to fluctuate, with energy corridors potentially in jeopardy. Yet the moral vacuum at the core of international diplomacy remains unaddressed.
Israel’s airstrikes were met with global rationalisation. Iran’s retaliation, despite being a legal response under Article 51 of the UN Charter (right to self-defence), has been cast as reckless aggression by many of the same actors.
The Cost of Silence
Iran’s breach of the Iron Dome shattered more than missile defence myths – it tore through the illusion that international norms apply equally. The sequence of events since June 13 has laid bare a system where power shields some from scrutiny, while others are condemned for merely defending themselves.
This is not just about two nations at war. It is about the erosion of a global conscience, the weaponisation of international law, and the collapse of credibility among those who claim to defend it. As Tel Aviv and Tehran exchange fire, the world must decide: Will it continue to speak in double tongues – or finally demand one law for all?
