On June 13, just two days before Iran and the United States were set to resume nuclear negotiations, Israel launched an unprovoked military strike on Iranian territory.
Framed by Tel Aviv as a necessary preemptive move to halt Tehran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, the attack has been condemned by many as a blatant violation of international law and an assault on the sovereignty of a nation engaged in diplomacy.
There is, notably, no credible evidence that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. In fact, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has publicly reiterated his administration’s position that Iran does not seek to develop a nuclear arsenal.
Contrastingly, Israel is estimated to possess up to 400 nuclear warheads since the 1960s and has consistently refused to join the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite persistent international calls for transparency, while Tehran is a signatory to the treaty. Nevertheless, global discourse continues to disproportionately focus on Iran’s hypothetical future nuclear capabilities rather than addressing Israel’s existing arsenal.
This contradiction lies at the heart of the growing perception that international norms are selectively applied—one set of rules for allies of the West, another for their rivals. The silence or outright support from key Western nations, especially the United States and France, only deepens this global trust deficit.
A double standard that undermines global norms
The justification for the Israeli attack—that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat—mirrors past Western interventions based on dubious intelligence or strategic motivations. One need only recall the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, carried out under the false pretence of weapons of mass destruction, which led to the deaths of an estimated half a million Iraqis. That history casts a long shadow over current events.
The broader issue here is not merely a confrontation between two nations. It’s about the erosion of international law when powerful states act with impunity.
This dynamic isn’t limited to Iran. It has been brutally visible in places like Gaza, where Israeli military operations have resulted in massive civilian casualties with little international accountability. The message is clear: international institutions appear powerless, and double standards remain entrenched.
For smaller or non-Western-aligned nations, this sends a chilling message: sovereignty offers no real protection in a world where global rules are bent to suit strategic interests.
The message to the world is bleak but clear: international institutions appear powerless, and accountability is contingent upon alliances, not principles. For non-Western or Global South countries, this sends a chilling signal—sovereignty and international law are increasingly optional in the face of Western-backed aggression.
In this context, many states are turning their gaze toward the idea of a multipolar world, not out of ideological conviction, but out of survival. Yet the events surrounding Israel’s strike on Iran threaten to expose that very idea as hollow.
System in need of reform
On June 14, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, himself embroiled in longstanding corruption scandals. Issued a call to the Iranian people for regime change under the banner of democracy. However, Israel’s concerns are less about democratic values and more about geopolitical power, centred on weakening Tehran’s influence and shifting regional power balances.
This logic has been applied, and is still going on, in the genocide in Gaza. Israel’s actions there are not about responding to governance failures or threats from a sovereign entity but are driven by deeper ethnic, territorial, and strategic aims. There were no nuclear warheads in Gaza, yet its population suffered the same fate under Israeli firepower.
It is clear that the post-World War II global system, built around the victors and embedded in the United Nations Security Council’s veto power, is failing to reflect the world’s current realities. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Türkiye has been one of the most consistent voices calling for reform of the structure.
His now famous assertion that “the world is bigger than five” critiques the undue power held by the five permanent Security Council members and calls for a more equitable and representative global governance system.
Multipolar ambitions meet geopolitical reality
Following the Cold War’s end, the US-dominated unipolar order was largely unchallenged.
However, the 21st century has witnessed a gradual redistribution of global power, with nations such as China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Türkiye, and the Gulf countries increasingly asserting their influence across the economic and political spectrum.
In response to these new dynamics, countries like Russia and China have spearheaded alliances such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to counterbalance Western hegemony and promote multipolarity. Iran, recognising the limits of the existing global system, has aligned itself accordingly.
It joined the SCO in 2023 and BRICS in 2024, two blocs that collectively represent a significant share of global GDP, population, and energy production.
Beyond institutional alignments, Iran has forged deep bilateral relationships.
With China, it signed a 25-year cooperation pact in 2021, becoming a key supplier of oil to Beijing. Around 15 percent of China’s oil imports are sourced from Iran.
Then in early 2025, Moscow and Tehran signed a 20-year strategic partnership agreement focussed largely on military cooperation. Iranian kamikaze drones have become a notable factor in Moscow’s operations in Ukraine, further cementing the two nations’ military ties.
Yet, when Israel launched its strike, these alliances did not translate into meaningful action. Neither China nor Russia offered military deterrence or substantive defence commitments. Their responses, limited to diplomatic condemnations, fell far short of what a truly multipolar system would imply.
This disconnect raises a critical question: Is multipolarity a genuine alternative, or just a rhetorical counterweight to Western power? If China and Russia cannot, or will not, act in defence of their partners in moments of crisis, then the multipolar promise begins to look like a fragile illusion.
Defining moment
The United States, unsurprisingly, stood firmly behind Israel, offering military assistance and deploying naval forces equipped to intercept Iranian retaliatory strikes in the Mediterranean. France,too, expressed willingness to assist Israel’s defence.
In contrast, the so-called multipolar coalition—BRICS, SCO, and their member states—responded with silence or symbolic gestures. This asymmetry exposes the limitations of current multipolar efforts and underlines a painful truth: international rules are still set and enforced by the West.
If no action is taken now, other sovereign states will fall one by one under arbitrary excuses in the future. Today it is Iran, tomorrow it might be us.
As the German pastor Martin Niemöller’ poem reminds us: "First they came…", those who remain silent in the face of injustice may find themselves alone when the storm reaches them.
Even recent declarations by US officials, such as Ambassador to Türkiye and special envoy for Syria Tom Barrack’s claim that “The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions, but partnerships, and a diplomacy grounded in respect.” ring hollow when measures against the events unfolding on the ground. Despite the rhetoric, the reality remains unchanged, might still prevail over right.
Israel’s attack on Iran is not just an act of aggression; it is a watershed moment for the global order. Should they stand firm, the multipolar world could emerge stronger, accelerating its push for mechanisms that may evade Western dominance.
Should the multipolar world fail to respond meaningfully, it risks cementing itself as little more than a talking point.
The future of the global order hangs in the balance. The world is indeed bigger than five. But unless the rest act now, it may remain governed by five and their friends for generations to come.
