South African expert criticises Israeli missile strikes on Iran as unjustified

IOL News

a day ago

Rescue teams work outside a heavily damaged building, targeted by an Israeli strike in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on June 13, 2025. Israel carried out strikes against Iran early on June 13, targeting its nuclear and military sites as well as residential buildings in Tehran, after US President Donald Trump warned of a possible "massive conflict" in the region.
Image: AFP
The Israeli missile attack on Iran was unprovoked because the latter had not made any moves to initiate the attack, said South Africa's expert on international affairs, Nazreen Shaik.
Shaik weighed in following a barrage of attacks on the Iranian territory in the early hours of Friday in Tehran, Iran's capital, killing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major-General Hossein Salami and other senior military officials, as well as nuclear scientists.
South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation had on Friday condemned the Israeli action.
'These actions raise serious concerns under international law, including the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the protection of civilians enshrined in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law,' read the statement.
Iran had already retaliated by firing missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
The Israeli strikes targeted Iran's nuclear and military sites. Both the Israeli and the United States of America governments accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, which might be a threat to their enemy countries.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
Iran, through its embassy in Pretoria, rejected the allegation of nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear programme 'is strictly peaceful and operates under full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a long-standing and committed member'.
Shaik said the Israeli attack was not provoked, and the matter should have been resolved through the rules of engagement, which are governed by international laws.
'Only if it's known that soldiers from country B are on the border and are about to attack, and they have gained that by military or security intelligence, only then would country A attack country B.
'But in the situation, this is what we call in international law a belligerent attack, where a country takes a unilateral state of action by itself, you decide that somebody poses a threat to you, therefore you will now attack that country,' said Shaik.
She said such actions were not acceptable in the norms and standards of international warfare.
She stated that the attack occurred while the US was holding talks with Iran regarding the issue of the nuclear facility, and 'the sunset clause, which instructs Iran to denuclearise, is due to take effect in 2029'.
Both Israel and the US opposed the terms of the clause as they felt that waiting for 2029 was too long.
'Israel seems to be acting on behalf of the US, pushing Iran to do something (denuclearise), which is the international bullying at the very least.
'No country should ever be allowed to attack another country without being prompted to do so,' said Shaik.
She said those who were concerned about Iran's nuclear programme should have approached the United Nations and the Security Council to intervene.
She said Israel and the US avoided the intervention of the Security Council because of Russia, which was assisted by Iran in the attack on Ukraine, and was a member of the Security Council.
'If the US approached the Security Council to cast the vote (on Iran's nuclear programme), Russia would veto those who are against Iran because Iran stood by it during the attack against Ukraine.'
She said even if Iran had reported Israel to the Security Council instead of retaliating, nothing would have been done as the US and Russia would not agree with each other, while the council's decision should be unanimous.
She feared that since Iran had already retaliated by firing missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the conflict might escalate.
'If Iran retaliates, the US is going to back Israel, and the US will send forces to Israel,' said Shaik.
She believed that Russia would not make a quick move to back Iran, 'but Russia would be supporting Iran in principle'.
Responding to this reporter's questions, an official from the Iranian embassy in Pretoria, who declined to give his name, said his country was committed to cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations.
'All of Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities are under the Agency's verification and supervision, and no deviation toward weapon production has ever been reported.
'Furthermore, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic has issued a binding religious decree (fatwa) that clearly prohibits the development or use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances,' said the official.
He said Israeli strikes also deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and residential areas in Tehran and other cities.
'Iran holds the Zionist regime fully responsible for this aggression, and also places direct responsibility on the United States and its allies, who enabled, coordinated, and politically supported this act.
'Without the approval and logistical backing of the US government, such a reckless attack could not have taken place.
'Iran reserves the full right to defend itself decisively, proportionally, and in accordance with international law,' said the official.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) chief executive officer, Mark Dubowitz, said in a statement late this week: 'Israel did what had to be done: defend itself, the West, and ultimately the Iranian people from the genocidal ambitions of the mullahs.
'Nuclear talks were heading to collapse under Tehran's defiance, and sanctions alone couldn't stop Iran's race toward multiple nuclear weapons.'
[e-mail]