Israel-Iran conflict and global leadership failures

Tensions between Israel and Iran reached a boiling point on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched a massive airstrike campaign against Iran’s nuclear and military sites, prompting a fierce response from Tehran. The Israeli operation, dubbed “Rising Lion”, aimed to neutralise what Israel perceived as an existential threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and missile capabilities. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, marking a significant escalation in the conflict.

According to Israel, its strikes on Iran are primarily to neutralise what it perceives as an imminent existential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and missile capabilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the operation was aimed at “rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival” and would continue “for as many days as it takes to remove this threat”.

The strikes targeted Iran’s core nuclear infrastructure, including the primary uranium enrichment site at Natanz, other nuclear sites at Fordow and Khorramabad, ballistic missile factories, and senior military commanders such as IRGC chief Hossein Salami and Armed Forces Chief Mohammad Bagheri.

Israeli military sources reiterated that the operation was a combined, preemptive, and precise campaign to systematically deny Iran the capability to destroy Israel, involving over 200 fighter jets and hundreds of munitions in coordinated strikes. The campaign also aimed to disrupt Iran’s command and control and degrade its missile programme, reflecting a long-term effort rather than a one-off attack.

Surprisingly, Israel, which thought that Iran would immediately opt for negotiation, saw Iran condemn the strikes as a “declaration of war”, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promising a fierce and decisive response to leave Israel “helpless”.

During the United Nations Security Council emergency meeting held on Friday, at the UN headquarters in New York, following Iran’s formal request, Iran’s UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani described the Israeli attacks as an assault on the international order and vowed a “decisive” and “proportionate” response. Notably, while the Security Council meeting was underway, Iran launched missile and drone attacks against Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, marking an immediate retaliation.

During the meeting, the world leaders commented on the strike. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called the situation a crisis and urged de-escalation: “This is a crisis that demands immediate diplomatic efforts to prevent a wider conflict.”

Similarly, the UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer said that the reports of strikes were “concerning” and called on those involved to “step back and reduce tensions urgently”. He said, “Stability in the Middle East must be the priority, and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy. China condemned the Israeli strikes as violations of Iranian sovereignty and urged calm.

Germany and Russia urged restraint and diplomacy, with Russia’s UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, similarly to what Iran’s UN Ambassador condemning the strikes as violations of international law, “Israel’s actions risk a wider regional disaster and must be addressed through diplomatic means.”

The Czech Foreign Minister, Jan\u202fLipavský, publicly acclaimed Israel’s recent military response as “a reasonable reaction” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its backing of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which he said, “intend to destroy the state of Israel”. He emphasised that Israel’s military action was understandable as a deterrent aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Although the US denied Iran’s claim that the US was backing Israel, US President Donald Trump publicly supported Israel’s strikes, urging Iran to negotiate seriously to avoid further conflict. Trump called the strikes excellent, and expressed US support for Israel’s right to self-defence, warning Iran not to target US personnel, while also emphasising restraint.

It is then clear that instead of trying to solve the real problem, the leaders were divided and siding with different factions.

Is Iran seeking a nuclear weapon?

Although the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s January 2025 assessment concludes Iran is not currently building nuclear weapons, it noted that the country could do so rapidly if it decides. A May 2025 report by the Institute for Science and International Security said Iran could convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into enough weapons-grade uranium for nine bombs in about three weeks. The June 2025 Euronews report would later state that Iran now has enough uranium for nine nuclear weapons and is accelerating enrichment.

Also, a May 2025 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as reported by AP News, revealed that Iran’s stockpile of uranium had surged to 408.6 kilogrammes, a nearly 50 per cent increase from its February 2025 level. The report emphasised that uranium enriched to 60 per cent is only a short technical step away from weapons-grade, and Iran remains the only non-nuclear, armed nation producing uranium at that level. Experts estimate that approximately 42 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent is enough to produce one nuclear bomb if further refined, making Iran’s current stockpile sufficient for multiple weapons.

While the IAEA urged Iran to urgently reverse course and fully cooperate with its investigation into undeclared nuclear activities, Iran dismissed the concerns, maintaining that its program is peaceful.

From the world’s perspective, Iran’s nuclear programme remains a major concern. Israel sees the programme as an existential threat. Russia and China support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT and call for diplomacy. Iran denies weapon intentions, rejects IAEA criticism, and vows to expand enrichment at sites like Fordow. Evidence that the global view, especially among European countries, is that while Iran insists on peaceful intent, its nuclear advances pose serious proliferation risks.

Despite Israel’s nuclear arsenal, it views Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat. Why are they trying to stop Iran? Maybe because Israel fears that a nuclear-armed Iran would embolden proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, increase missile threats, and destabilise the region further.

Even with global calls and all the aforementioned analyses, the lack of concrete action signifies the world’s quiet hypocrisy, urging restraint while doing little to halt escalation.

Yes, Israel has the military capability to conduct precise, large-scale strikes inside Iran, as demonstrated by the recent strike. Experts like Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute affirm that Israel’s advanced intelligence and air power enable such operations. However, the strikes carry significant risks of escalation.

Regarding Iran’s response, analysts such as Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group caution that escalating tensions could provoke harsher Israeli retaliation and destabilise the region further.

According to the Institute for the Study of War, Israel’s strikes suppressed Iranian air defences, degraded its retaliatory capabilities, and disrupted command and control structures, making a swift Iranian response difficult. However, such actions and rhetoric may provoke Iran’s further retaliation and could fuel further escalation. But while Iran’s retaliation is expected to preserve deterrence, escalating tensions could accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but also lead to devastating consequences.

Apparently, though, certain European countries and the US seem to love war, as they appear to tolerate or even benefit from ongoing conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and the repeated Israel-Gaza confrontations. People like Trump are even threatening more war, even though he promised to stop the Gaza war & the Ukraine-Russia war. His recent rhetoric supports Israel’s strikes on Iran while urging Tehran to “make a deal before there is nothing left”. Contradicts his stance and divides his base.

These wars inevitably impact the entire world, directly or indirectly, through economic turmoil, humanitarian crises, and threats to global security. They should also calculate that no nation is truly insulated from the consequences of conflict. Such ongoing violence only deepens instability and undermines peace worldwide.

In this context, world leaders are failing in their duty by allowing these wars to continue instead of prioritising diplomacy and peaceful resolutions that protect all nations from the devastating effects of war. This is more reason the world should be thinking of how to avoid wars.

To avoid further wars amid rising tensions, the world needs to prioritise diplomacy and restraint.

Confidence-building measures, grassroots peace efforts, and global disarmament cooperation are key to preventing conflict, reducing escalation risks, and promoting lasting peace.

Reports and analyses show Israel had been planning the recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites for months. Iran’s immediate retaliation with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities demonstrated it was prepared for such threats.

Given this, world leaders cannot claim ignorance of the escalating dangers and could have acted earlier to mediate and prevent conflict. This situation underscores the truth that prevention is better than a cure, and timely diplomatic efforts are essential to avoid war.

Dr Mbamalu, a Jefferson Journalism Fellow (Hawaii, USA), member of the Nigerian Guild of Editors and media consultant, is the publisher of Prime Business Africa

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).