A delicate balancing act awaits Russia, one of Iran’s key allies that also maintains ties with Israel.

After Israel launched what it described as “preventive” attacks on Iranian military and nuclear targets last week, Russia’s position appeared clear.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow condemned what it called “unprovoked military strikes against a sovereign UN member state”, referring to Iran.

The Kremlin, whose partnership with Iran dates back many years, has urged a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Advertisement

Since the hostilities began on Friday, more than 220 people have been killed in Israeli attacks on Iran while 24 people have been killed in Iranian counterstrikes.

Both Iran and Russia shared an ally in former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and intervened on his behalf in the Syrian war until his eventual defeat late last year. Iran has supplied Russia with Shahed kamikaze drones to be used on Ukrainian targets, and last year, there were reports that Russia received hundreds of Fath-360 ballistic missiles from Iran, which are known to be accurate at short range.

“Of course, Russia should be friends with Iran because, in politics and in life, everything is very simple,” hawkish Russian TV personality Sergey Mardan commented after the latest Middle East crisis escalated. “If you have an enemy and your enemy has partners and allies, his partners and allies are automatically your enemies.

Advertisement

“There are no illusions about this, and there can’t be any. Since Israel is a key ally of the United States; … of course, we are interested in the weakening of Israel and helping its adversaries.”

While Russia might be sympathetic to Iran, the extent of their relationship should not be overstated, said independent Middle East specialist Ruslan Suleymanov, who is based in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Russia now manufactures its own Shahed drones under licence, so its own combat capabilities are unlikely to be affected by the Iran-Israel conflict, he said.

“The Iranians, in turn, expected more from Russia. They expected a much larger amount of aircraft, military, space technologies, not to mention nuclear,” Suleymanov told Al Jazeera.

“But Russia did not rush to share because it is very important for Moscow to maintain a balance in the Middle East and maintain relations with Israel. And if Russia begins to supply arms to Iran, no one excludes the fact that these weapons can be directed at Israel, and the Kremlin does not want this.”

Although a strategic partnership agreement was signed between Moscow and Tehran this year, Suleymanov noted it does not mean Russia is obliged to step up to defend Iran.

Advertisement

“It is obvious that at any vote of the UN Security Council, Russia, along with China, will stand on the side of the Islamic Republic [of Iran],” he said. “However, we should not expect anything more.”

While the Western-oriented liberal opposition has been largely supportive of Israel, Russia is treading a fine line to uphold its ties with the administration of President Benjamin Netanyahu.

“One monkey got his grenade taken away. We’re waiting for the other one,” exiled Russian politician Dmitry Gudkov wrote on social media, referring to the Iranian and Russian leadership, respectively.

Advertisement

“Does Israel (or any country, for that matter) have the legal right to try to knock a nuclear grenade out of the hands of a big monkey playing with it next to it? And one that constantly growls in your direction? I think the answer is obvious.”

Russia’s relations with Israel are complicated.

Although the Soviet Union initially supported the creation of the state of Israel, it soon threw its weight behind Arab nations and backed the Palestinian cause.

Advertisement

Today, Russia refuses to blacklist Hamas as a “terrorist organisation” although its support for Palestine is balanced by its relationship with Israel. Israel, meanwhile, is concerned with the safety and survival of Russia’s Jewish community.

Regarding Syria, Russia and Israel shared an understanding whereby Moscow tacitly overlooked Israeli operations targeting its ally, Iranian-backed Hezbollah. Israel, for its part, avoided antagonising or sanctioning Moscow and arming Ukraine. However, the collapse of al-Assad’s regime has changed this calculus.

“Russia and Israel, by and large, proceed from different interests in Syria,” observed Alexey Malinin, founder of the Moscow-based Center for International Interaction and Cooperation and a member of the Digoria Expert Club.

Advertisement

“If Russia had the goal of ensuring the safety of Syrian citizens, ensuring the stability of legitimate power, then Israel sets itself the goal of maximally protecting itself from potential threats from Syria, not paying attention to the legality and legitimacy of such decisions. Therefore, Israel calmly went beyond the buffer zone on the Golan Heights and de facto occupied the territory of Syria after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime.”

“It was really important for Russia to have contact with Israel, being in Syria, because without interaction with Tel Aviv, it was very difficult to carry out any manoeuvres on Syrian territory,” Suleymanov added. “But now such a need simply does not exist. Russia does not require any close coordination with [Israel].”

Still, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Netanyahu have in the past enjoyed a friendly relationship, even being spotted at a ballet performance together in 2016.

Russia the powerbroker?

Some analysts believe the Israel-Iran crisis provides Putin with an opportunity to flex his diplomatic muscle.

“Vladimir Putin has already offered mediation, and Russia is objectively one of the platforms most open to compromise due to constructive relations with both countries,” Malinin stated.

However, Suleymanov said, the Kremlin’s influence over the Middle East has waned since the change of power in Syria and it already has its hands full.

“Russia itself needs intermediaries in Ukraine,” he said.

“The situation in the Middle East will not directly affect the war in Ukraine. But for the Kremlin, it is undoubtedly beneficial that the attention of the world community, starting with the West, is now diverted from Ukraine. Against this background, Putin can move on to a further offensive in Ukraine.”

Malinin acknowledged that Western support for Kyiv could drop in the short term “in favour of Israel”.

“But it is unlikely that in this context we can talk about something serious and large scale.”

The NPT bars members that don’t have nuclear weapons from acquiring them. But critics call the treaty discriminatory.

The Iranian government says parliament is drafting legislation to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as it is engaged in an escalating military conflict with Israel.

Tehran’s threat on Monday to walk away from the international treaty comes after Israel launched an unprecedented attack on Iran’s nuclear and military sites, killing several nuclear scientists and scholars along with top military commanders.

Israel has said its attacks are aimed at stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is for peaceful, civilian purposes. Meanwhile, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons – despite never officially acknowledging its arsenal or being a signatory to the NPT.

Since Israel launched the attacks on Friday, both countries have exchanged fatal salvoes, launching ballistic missiles and drone attacks on each other’s territories. The death toll from Israel’s attacks on Iran has risen to more than 220, including 70 women and children, while over 20 people have been killed in Iranian attacks on Israel. Late on Monday, United States President Donald Trump issued a warning to residents of Tehran to flee.

So what has Tehran said about pulling out of the NPT? Why might it do so? What is the NPT? And what could be the fallout of such a decision?

What has Iran threatened?

On Monday, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that lawmakers are preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT.

“In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision,” ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said at a news conference. “[The] government has to enforce parliament bills, but such a proposal is just being prepared, and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament.”

Advertisement

President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran has no plans to develop nuclear weapons and its nuclear activities remain focused on peaceful energy production and research.

Pezeshkian further said Tehran’s policies align with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s longstanding religious edict against weapons of mass destruction. “The Zionist regime is the only possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the region,” Baghaei said, referring to the Israeli government.

What is the NPT?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a landmark international treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

It was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and entered into force on March 5, 1970. The treaty was negotiated by the US, Soviet Union and Britain.

Under the NPT, nuclear-weapon states agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or assist nonnuclear-weapon states in developing them. Nonnuclear-weapon states also agree not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons.

The treaty views nuclear-weapon states as those that manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear device before January 1, 1967. Those countries are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. The treaty also paves a path for these original nuclear weapons powers to phase out their arsenals.

The treaty supports the right of all signatories to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under safeguards overseen by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Among the 11 articles of the treaty, one enables a country to withdraw with three months notice “if it decides that extraordinary events … have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country”.

Why would an Iranian withdrawal be significant?

Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the nonprofit Arms Control Association, told Al Jazeera that she wasn’t surprised by Iranian threats to withdraw from the NPT.

“The Israeli attacks are driving debate in Iran about whether nuclear weapons are necessary to deter future attacks,” Davenport said. “[The] NPT withdrawal would be a signal of how seriously Iran is considering weapons development.”

Iran signed the NPT in July 1968 and ratified it in February 1970 as a nonnuclear-weapon state. It has since said its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and research. The IAEA has conducted inspections under the treaty’s safeguards system.

To be sure, withdrawal from the NPT wouldn’t automatically mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon. Officially, the Iranian government’s position on not seeking nuclear arms remains unchanged.

Advertisement

But if it exits the treaty, Iran would no longer be bound by the NPT’s requirements, including oversight by the IAEA, obligations related to nuclear transparency and a commitment to not building a nuclear bomb.

Without IAEA safeguards, UN inspectors and the rest of the world would have less knowledge of Iran’s nuclear programme – which in turn could spark concerns that Tehran could choose to secretly advance towards developing nuclear weapons.

Could an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT impact the treaty’s legitimacy?

“If Iran withdraws from the NPT and develops nuclear weapons, there could be a ripple effect in the region,” Davenport said. “Other states may similarly feel pressured to acquire a nuclear deterrent.”

She described the NPT as a “critical bulwark” against the spread of nuclear weapons.

“Any erosion would be destabilising. Failing to resolve Iran’s nuclear crisis would deal a serious blow to the treaty,” she told Al Jazeera.

Davenport said she believes diplomacy still deserves a shot.

“The first step is to press for de-escalation and a return of IAEA inspectors to Iranian nuclear facilities. It is critical for the agency to begin to assess the damage at Iran’s nuclear sites and account for Iran’s nuclear materials,” she said.

At the same time, she said, the US needs to work with Russia and China – allies of Iran – to persuade Tehran against walking away from the NPT.

An “Iranian withdrawal from the NPT will have a negative impact by pushing more states to consider the benefits of withdrawal or use withdrawal threats as leverage,” she warned.

Which countries are NPT signatories – and which are not?

As of 2025, 191 countries are parties to the NPT, making it one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements.

But four nuclear weapons states – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – are not members of the NPT regime.

Of these, India, Pakistan and Israel – and South Sudan – never joined the treaty. North Korea was a party to the treaty but withdrew from it in 2003.

Have the NPT and IAEA faced criticism?

The nuclear nonproliferation regime and its leading oversight agency, the IAEA, have both faced criticism over the years.

India, for instance, has repeatedly defended its refusal to sign the NPT by describing the treaty as “discriminatory, unequal and flawed” because it allows those who had nuclear weapons on a specific date to continue to have them while banning others from access to atomic bombs. The NPT, in effect, divides the world “into nuclear haves and have‑nots”, India has argued, pointing out that the treaty does not force the US, Russia, China, France and the UK to eliminate their atomic weapons.

Meanwhile, the IAEA has come under criticism from Iran over a recent censure from the agency that Tehran said facilitated Israel’s attack.

The IAEA resolution last week accused Iran of a lack of transparency over its nuclear programme. “Those voting for the [IAEA] resolution prepared the ground for the attack” by Israel, Baghaei said.

Advertisement

What did the IAEA say in its censure of Iran?

The IAEA said Iran was not cooperating with verifications relating to its nuclear programme.

Iran, the UN agency said, had not provided “credible explanations” for the presence of uranium particles at multiple “undeclared locations” or information on the location of nuclear material.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, also said the agency was concerned about “the rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran”.

Responding to the IAEA resolution, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and Atomic Energy Organization said Tehran had always adhered to its safeguards obligations, adding that the resolution was politically motivated and lacked technical and legal foundations.

British security firm Ambrey says the incident involving an oil tanker was not security related.

Two oil tankers have collided in the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil checkpoint just off the coast of Iran.

British maritime security monitor Ambrey said that the collision on Tuesday of the Adalynn and the Front Eagle is “not security-related,” despite the proximity of the accident to the war raging between Israel and Iran and concerns over its impact on navigation.

Shipping company Frontline said a fire was extinguished on the Front Eagle tanker, 15 nautical miles (28km) off the UAE’s Gulf of Oman coast. It added that no pollution had been detected.

The United Arab Emirates coastguard said it had evacuated 24 people from the Adalynn oil tanker.

The Front Eagle was loaded with 2 million barrels of Iraqi crude oil and was en route to Zhoushan in China, according to monitoring service TankerTrackers.com.

The Adalynn, a Suezmax-class tanker owned by India-based Global Shipping Holding Ltd, had no cargo and was sailing towards the Suez Canal in Egypt, the monitoring service said.

National Guard Executes Evacuation of 24 People from Oil Tanker Following Collision Between Two Ships in the sea of Oman The Coast Guard of the National Guard carried out today, Tuesday, June 17, 2025, an evacuation mission involving 24 crew members of the oil tanker ADALYNN,… — الحرس الوطني (@Uaengc) June 17, 2025

The Hormuz Strait is the strategic maritime entryway to the Gulf, and about a fifth of the world’s oil passes through it, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.

Advertisement

However, as Israel and Iran engaged in massive air strikes against one another for a fifth day, maritime experts say shipowners are increasingly wary of using the waterway, with some ships having tightened security and others rerouting.

Commercial ship navigation systems have been experiencing electronic interference around the strait and wider Gulf region, according to naval sources.

The multinational, US-led Combined Maritime Force’s JMIC information centre said in an advisory this week that it had received reports of electronic interference stemming from the vicinity of Iran’s Port of Bandar Abbas.

Tehran has in the past threatened to close the strait to traffic in retaliation for Western pressure. Since the start of the open hostilities with Israel, Iranian officials have reiterated the possibility.

A wave of attacks on ships in the area has been attributed to Iran since 2019, following President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Such a move would affect global energy markets, but would likely draw a swift response from the US. Tehran is believed to be keen to avoid direct confrontation with the US due to its limited military capacity.

Iran has not commented on the collision or the earlier reports of electronic interference.

Israel’s attacks on Iran’s atomic facilities have increased fears of nuclear and chemical contamination, experts say, amid already heightened risks because of India-Pakistan tensions and the Russia-Ukraine war.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to launch strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked concerns among sections of the global community, atomic energy regulators and experts on the risks of nuclear contamination.

On Monday, Rafael Grossi, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, said there was a possibility of both radiological and chemical contamination from the damaged Natanz installation, Iran’s major nuclear hub.

Meanwhile, regional and global leaders warned that the Israeli strikes, which began on Friday, could further destabilise the region and increase the chances of a nuclear confrontation.

Advertisement

Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, on Saturday expressed “deepest concern” at the escalation. The EU opposes Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons but believes “diplomacy, not military action” is the way to achieve that, she said.

Netanyahu, who has been calling for attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites for years, launched the unprecedented strikes as nuclear talks were being conducted between Washington and Tehran.

United States President Donald Trump has said his country was not involved in the attacks but has promised that he won’t allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes.

Advertisement

So do Israel’s attacks point to a growing risk of nuclear radiation after two nuclear-armed neighbours – India and Pakistan – also came to blows in May and with Russia and Ukraine tussling for control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest?

What did the IAEA say?

Addressing an urgent session of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on Monday, Grossi said radiation levels appear normal outside both the Natanz nuclear installation and another facility in Isfahan also targeted in Israeli strikes.

However, the IAEA director general warned that military escalation “increases the chance of a radiological release”. Grossi had on Friday told the UN Security Council that Israel’s strike on Natanz destroyed the above-ground part of the facility. While the main centrifuge facility underground was not hit, it lost power because of the attack.

That in turn, he warned, might have damaged the underground centrifuges that enrich uranium. Spinning centrifuges contain a gas called uranium hexafluoride, and it is this gas that poses the greatest risk of chemical contamination at Natanz at the moment, Grossi said. The gas is made by combining uranium and fluorine and is highly volatile and corrosive. It can burn skin and can be deadly if inhaled. It is unclear whether any of this gas has escaped from the centrifuges because of the power loss.

“Amid these challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the facilities and their respective sites,” Grossi said. In the absence of that information, he said, the IAEA “cannot accurately assess the radiological conditions and potential impacts on the population and the environment and cannot provide the necessary assistance.”

Advertisement

Have nuclear facilities been hit before?

Al Jazeera cannot find a record of an operational nuclear ​installation coming under attack, but ​power plants have often been attacked while under construction – mostly in the Middle East.

A week into the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, Iran’s Operation Scorch Sword damaged Iraq’s unfinished Osirak ​nuclear reactor in the world’s first attack on a nuclear power plant.

Advertisement

Israel conducted another air attack the following year, destroying the French-built reactor in Operation Opera. A decade later, US Operation Desert Storm attacked the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Centre, of which Osirak was a part.

Iraq also attacked Iran’s incomplete nuclear reactor at Bushehr during the Iran-Iraq War, damaging it. The Soviet Union eventually completed the reactor in the early 2000s, and it went into operation in 2009.

Israel recently revealed that in 2007, it had bombed a Syrian reactor, apparently only just before it became operational, believing it to be part of a plan by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to acquire nuclear weapons. Operation Outside the Box bombed the North Korean-built plutonium reactor at Deir Az Zor, destroying it.

Advertisement

Other reactors have come under attack for political rather than security reasons.

Spain’s Basque separatist group ETA bombed a nuclear power station under construction in Lemoiz on Spain’s northern coast. ETA detonated bombs inside the facility in 1978 and 1979, killing three workers. Twice it assassinated the project’s chief engineer. Spain eventually abandoned the plant in 1983 after the Francisco Franco dictatorship’s nuclear programme was cancelled.

Antinuclear activists caused damage to unfinished power plants in 1982. In France, they fired five rocket-propelled grenades into the Creys-Malville plant near Lyon, creating a hole in its outer concrete wall.

Advertisement

In December of that year, the African National Congress set off a series of four staggered bombs at the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, which South Africa’s apartheid government was building near Cape Town. The first of two reactors at the plant was to have started operating that month. There were no injuries or radiation leakage.

Have there been other times the world’s been close to a nuclear incident?

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Dan Smith, the head of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said the world has rarely been in much danger from accidental nuclear weapons use.

Previously, risks have primarily arisen from the threat of miscalculations.

Advertisement

“The last time that there was open information to show we were so close to disaster is the Petrov incident in September 1983 – a false alarm in the Soviet early warning system that he [an engineer] refused to report,” Smith said.

Stanislav Petrov, who worked at Moscow’s early warning command centre, received satellite information that a US ballistic missile had been launched against Russia, followed by four more.

It was a time of great tension between the superpowers as the US objected to the deployment of Russian SS20 missiles with multiple warheads and Moscow objected to forward-deployed Pershing II nuclear missiles being stationed in Western Europe.

Advertisement

Petrov may have averted a nuclear war by waiting for corroborating evidence before alerting his superiors. No missiles hit Russian soil, and the Soviet satellite information turned out to have been faulty.

More recently, during the four-day military conflict between India and Pakistan, India fired its homegrown BrahMos missiles at its neighbour. While the missiles carried conventional payloads in this case, some experts believe they could be modified to carry nuclear warheads too.

And as Khurram Dastgir Khan, former Pakistan defence minister, told Al Jazeera in May: “Once the missile is in the air, you cannot know what payload it carries until it hits the target.”

Such scenarios increase the risk of a nuclear war in instances in which both sides – such as in the case of Russia and NATO in Europe – are nuclear armed, Smith said.

He said that more than any planned nuclear attack, he worries about “somebody somewhere, in a chain of command under extreme pressure of time, with hostility in the atmosphere, with violent rhetoric in the background,” reacting mistakenly.

“Somebody sees something and they say, ‘That’s it. This is the big one. This is the attack coming. It’s 75 missiles and their warheads, just like we predicted in our exercise six months ago, and we have to destroy the remainder of their force so that they cannot escalate.’”

Has the Russia-Ukraine war added to the risks too?

A more recent nuclear contamination scare came early in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine when it seized the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) on March 4, 2022. The ZNPP has six reactors, and it stands on the left bank of the Dnipro River, which forms part of the front line between Ukrainian and Russian forces.

Ukraine said Russia had placed 500 soldiers with military equipment, tanks and ammunition in the engine room of the first reactor unit, impeding access for firefighting equipment.

This Russian garrison also fired into Nikopol, across the Dnipro, apparently to provoke retaliatory fire.

On August 1, 2022, then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the UN General Assembly: “Russia is now using the plant as a military base to fire at Ukrainians, knowing that they can’t and won’t shoot back because they might accidentally strike a nuclear – a reactor or highly radioactive waste in storage. That brings the notion of having a human shield to an entirely different and horrific level.”

Two days later, Ukraine’s state nuclear power agency, Energoatom, said Russian forces fired rockets and artillery into the power plant, damaging its nitrogen-oxygen station. “There are risks of hydrogen leakage and sputtering of radioactive substances. Fire danger is high,” Energoatom said.

The IAEA eventually intervened to ensure all six reactors were powered down and hostilities around the plant ceased, but the plant still needs a steady supply of water and electricity to cool spent fuel rods and reactors.

The head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency said that there is a possibility of both radiological and chemical contamination there. However, he asserted that the radiation levels outside the complex are normal.

As tensions between Israel and Iran spiral into dangerous territory, the Israeli military has struck Iran’s principal uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, igniting fears of a potential radiological and chemical catastrophe. The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, Rafael Mariano Grossi, sounded a grave warning about the possible consequences of the attack, but assuring that radiation levels outside the site currently remain stable.

“There is a possibility of both radiological and chemical contamination there,” said Grossi, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He clarified, however, that “the level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact to the population or the environment from this event.”

Despite the initial calm, Grossi voiced concern about the lethal implications if uranium — especially in its volatile hexafluoride gas form — were to be ingested or inhaled. “It will pose a significant danger,” he warned, adding that the threat can be mitigated with adequate safety measures. “Appropriate protective measures,” such as respiratory gear for personnel, are now urgently necessary, he noted.

Addressing an emergency meeting of the IAEA board in Vienna, Grossi stated that no further structural damage had been reported at Natanz or at the Isfahan nuclear research centre following Saturday’s strikes. Yet, he cautioned that unseen damage, especially due to power disruptions, might have compromised delicate systems.

Satellite images confirm damage

Recent satellite imagery reviewed by The Associated Press reveal sweeping destruction at the Natanz site. Key buildings — particularly those supplying electricity to the complex — have been reduced to rubble. Although the subterranean centrifuge facility appears intact, Grossi confirmed that the surface infrastructure has been annihilated, and warned of possible hidden fallout due to the loss of power.

Meanwhile, in Isfahan, the Israeli operation has reportedly left four critical buildings — including a uranium conversion plant — severely damaged. Fortunately, no radiation leaks have been detected from either Natanz or Isfahan, though the intensity and precision of the strikes have shocked the international nuclear community.

In contrast, Iran’s other major nuclear facilities — the Fordo enrichment plant, the Bushehr commercial nuclear reactor, and the Tehran Research Reactor — have been spared from harm, at least for now.

‘Wake up to Gaza,’ UN tells world leaders

While the world grapples with the fallout from the escalating Iran-Israel conflict, another urgent appeal echoed from Geneva. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, delivered a searing condemnation of Israel’s relentless military campaign in Gaza.

“The facts speak for themselves,” Türk declared as he opened the latest session of the Human Rights Council. “Everyone in government needs to wake up to what is happening in Gaza. All those with influence must exert maximum pressure on Israel and Hamas, to put an end to this unbearable suffering.”

Describing the situation as one of “horrifying, unconscionable suffering,” Türk urged the international community to act swiftly and decisively to halt the crisis.