Supposedly the guardians of Western, democratic values and a ‘rules-based’ order, the leaders of the G7 nations’ joint statement on the Israel-Iran War is yet another selective application of international law that makes us all less secure, write Ian Davis and Paul Ingram.
Keir Starmer and the other G7 leaders appear to have lost the plot, with a statement that throws into doubt their collective judgement and commitment to international law and truth. “Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon”, declared the statement, which also affirms Israel’s right to defend itself, but offers no similar solace to Iran.
Three of the G7 leaders represent nuclear armed states (United States, United Kingdom and France)—although it is reported that Trump didn’t sign the statement—while the other four ‘benefit’ from extended nuclear deterrence (Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan). The European Union, a “non-enumerated member” of the G7 is also increasingly interested in pursuing its own nuclear umbrella.
There is no mention in the statement of Israel as the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the region or the instigator of the attack on Iran on 13 June. And it fails to acknowledge Israel’s ongoing acts of genocide in Gaza—extensively described by UN experts and human rights organisations, including large-scale killing, use of starvation as a weapon of war, destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on healthcare workers and forced displacement. In short, the G7 statement is a new low for those purportedly tasked with defending an international rules-based system.
The situation is a throwback to the US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, with many parallels. The war in Iraq was significantly fuelled by disinformation, particularly regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, contributing to public support for the invasion.
Israel’s illegal preventive attack on Iran is being given Western diplomatic cover on the false claim that Iran was close to deploying nuclear weapons. Claims that Iran is close to building a nuclear bomb go back as far as 2002. In 2012, for example, the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wielded a cartoon of a bomb and told the UN Security Council that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran undoubtedly is close to having the capability of building a nuclear bomb. But this is far different to creating an operational nuclear weapons programme, which requires warheads, neutron triggers, casings and tests to see if the final product works. Iran has certainly made significant progress in producing its key ingredient: highly enriched uranium, and possesses more than 400kg of 60% U235. It could convert this into enough enriched uranium for nine nuclear bombs “in three weeks” at its Fordow facility, according to the US-based Institute for Science and International Security, but there was no evidence Iran had any intention to do this. The evidence points to the material being accumulated to strengthen their hand in any deal.
In its most recent report the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), concluded that Iran had violated its safeguards obligations because it had failed to explain the existence of trace elements of uranium discovered at three sites some year ago thought to relate to activities prior to 2003. It found no evidence of a current, illicit nuclear programme – an assessment that is supported by US intelligence community findings. Israel’s actions are unlikely to have set back Iran’s nuclear programme by more than a few months, but they most certainly will affect Iran’s strategic calculus around its decisions to acquire a nuclear arsenal.
The Iraq debacle caused huge damage to western credibility, had a devastating impact on the country and its people, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of coalition soldiers and destabilized the region and contributed to the rise of extremist groups. The situation in Iran is likely to be even more consequential than in Iraq. The majority world will again see this as demonstrating the G7’s inability to act in any responsible manner in relation to international law, whereas the failure to reign in Israel will deeply harm international institutions and norms, such as the IAEA and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Multilateralism and nuclear arms control has been on life support for some years. European states have collaborated with Israel and the United States to pull the plug on it. Criticism of Russia and China will have little sway now in much of the majority world, which is likely to choose the BRICs over the West as a more reliable partner.
In addition, the IAEA’s ability to engage with Iran has been shot to pieces because its Director General Raphael Grossi has failed to condemn (as opposed to expressing concern) about Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities within a non-nuclear weapon state under IAEA safeguards. The IAEA also stands accused of leaking sensitive information to Israel (the IAEA says it was stolen) that has been used in the past and this week to assassinate nuclear scientists in Iran. Grossi now appears to be acting like an Israeli bomb spotter, offering evidence of the damage to nuclear facilities and assuring the international community of minimal radiation leakage (whilst rendering the facilities unusable because of chemical and radiological contamination). There may now be no realistic future possibility of Iranian cooperation with the Agency while Grossi and others implicated are leading it.
It is likely that Iran will leave the NPT, as it has threatened to do, and there must now be serious doubt as to their future restraint in developing a nuclear arsenal. Many in Iran will now be arguing that this is the only means to defend itself against Israel: an absolute right to self-defence that the G7 would presumably support if the boot were on the other foot. This whole sorry affair exposes the manipulation of the facts by Western governments to maintain its perceived interests in the region and protect Israel from sanction.
Dr Ian Davis is the founder of NATO Watch, a website platform to promote a more transparent and accountable NATO. He is also the Executive Editor of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook and an Associate Senior Fellow within Conflict and Peace at SIPRI. Prior to joining SIPRI, he held several senior positions, including Executive Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), 2001-2007
Paul Ingram is a research affiliate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, a founder Director of the Global Stability Network looking at the effects of military and economic deterrence strategies on stability, and a member of the Oxford Process team focused on the Ukraine war and the broader challenge of global divisions. He was the Executive Director of BASIC, 2007-2019.
The views and opinions expressed in posts on the Rethinking Security blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the network and its broader membership.
Image Credit: Number 10 via Flickr. US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, 16 June 2025.
