Israel's unilateralism erodes global norms

New Straits Times

9 hours ago

FOR decades, Israel has argued that it is entitled to "defend itself by any means necessary". In practice, this has translated into preemptive strikes, assassinations and cyber operations, often without oversight or consequence.
Iran, despite its many internal contradictions and geopolitical posturing, remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
It has allowed international inspectors into its nuclear sites under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Although concerns about potential weaponisation persist, there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has resumed efforts to build a nuclear bomb since suspending such work in 2003, according to multiple US National Intelligence Estimates.
In contrast, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It has never declared its nuclear arsenal and maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Israel possesses between 80 and 90 nuclear warheads; some even say that it has up to 400.
Its nuclear capability is neither under international safeguards nor subject to any verification regime.
In short, Israel operates outside the very frameworks of transparency and accountability it demands of others.
This asymmetry cannot be ignored.
When Israel bombs enrichment facilities in Iran — Syria in 2007 and Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 — it does so without international authorisation.
Such actions not only destroy infrastructure, but they also risk triggering chain reactions: environmental hazards, radioactive fallout and regional conflict.
A strike on nuclear infrastructure is not a tactical operation. It is a strategic gamble with consequences too vast and uncertain.
The international system cannot and should not tolerate a world where might makes right, and where the perception of danger becomes the only threshold for war.
By acting unilaterally, Israel undermines the global norms that have kept nuclear proliferation in check.
It sends a signal that treaties, verification mechanisms and diplomatic negotiations are inferior to airstrikes and firepower.
It weakens the very architecture that has, despite its flaws, prevented the use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
It is also worth asking — what does "security" mean in this context?
Is it merely the absence of a threat, or is it the cultivation of sustainable peace through engagement, treaties and mutual accountability?
History has shown that durable security cannot be bombed into existence.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 — justified on fears of weapons of mass destruction — led to the unravelling of an entire region.
Libya's disarmament in 2003, once hailed as a diplomatic success, eventually resulted in the regime's collapse, discouraging others from following suit.
Similarly, every Israeli airstrike may delay but never eliminate Iran's nuclear capability.
It may harden Iranian resolve, radicalise moderate factions and push Teheran further into partnerships with rogue actors.
More dangerously, it validates Teheran's argument that only by acquiring a credible deterrent can it avoid the fate of Iraq or Libya.
The role of diplomacy and international law cannot be shunted aside.
Israel's fears, while understandable, do not give it a blank cheque to act as judge, jury and executioner.
There are multilateral channels, however imperfect, that must be strengthened, not bypassed.
If the IAEA and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were sabotaged, it was partly due to the unilateral withdrawal by the United States in 2018.
That decision, supported by Israel, collapsed a functioning framework for nuclear oversight.
For Asean countries and the Global South more broadly, the stakes are high. The normalisation of preventive warfare undermines all regional stability.
In Southeast Asia, where efforts to create the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone are always at the back of the mind of policymakers, events in Iran do not augur well. Not at all.
Malaysia, Indonesia and others must not condone the notion that power permits impunity. Upholding international law, especially on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, must remain paramount.
Israel's right to exist and defend itself cannot come at the expense of international order. The world cannot permit any nation, however threatened it may feel, to unilaterally strike nuclear facilities and expect no consequences.
The cost of such actions is not only borne by Iran.
They are borne by every civilian who lives within range of retaliatory missiles, by every region trying to contain escalation and by every global citizen who depends on a rules-based international order to keep nuclear chaos at bay.