Iran in turn is now illegally attacking civilian targets in neighbouring Gulf states which had been advocating against this war and playing a crucial role in mediating diplomatic talks. This escalation is driven by the destructive logic that violence and disruption are the ways to show strength. Multilateralism and diplomacy are needed to counter, restrain, prevent and ultimately provide an alternative to this logic of war. 

Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear capabilities were not exhausted, despite the US and Israeli claims that this attack on Iran was needed to prevent Tehran obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Not only were talks ongoing, but Omani mediators also say a deal was in reach. Nuclear diplomacy has proven effective in the past: the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, endorsed by UNSCR 2231, and verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), held until the US unilaterally withdrew under the first Trump administration in 2016. Negotiations towards a renewed nuclear deal were also taking place in 2025 when Israel and then the US illegally attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities that were under IAEA safeguards. 

Precise accounts will differ, and Iran has engaged in dangerous brinkmanship with the nuclear issue, including by making threats that it might obtain a nuclear weapon in future. Nonetheless, the fact that two nuclear-armed states have again launched a war against a non-nuclear state in the name of non-proliferation, even as talks were taking place, represents a serious blow to the legal architecture that has held proliferation in check for decades.  

It is evident that the reasons for war go beyond the nuclear issue, and that the US and Israel have wider aims to either decapitate or collapse the Iranian political system. For their part, the UK and some of its international partners have been reluctant to condemn the attacks, including the assassination of Iran’s head of state, the Ayatollah Khamenei. They are concerned about openly criticising the US. They are also mindful of their adversarial relationship with Iran and its destabilising and dangerous behaviour including repression at home, state threats against dissidents abroad, and sponsorship of non-state armed groups in conflict with Israel. However international law is clear on the prohibition of violent regime change.