Int'l Law, Order At Stake: Analyst Delves Into Consequences of Israeli Aggression on Iran

IQNA – A Malaysian analyst says the silence of the international community and bodies over Israeli aggression on Iran threatens the international law and order as 'might' may replace 'right.' 

"The failure of the UN Security Council and IAEA to consistently condemn Israeli attacks against Iran, signals inconsistency and hypocrisy" said Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa the director of Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF),  and lecturer, Monash University Malaysia. 

The remarks come just weeks after the Israeli regime launched a full-scale aggression on Iranian territory on June 13, striking multiple military and nuclear sites, and carrying out assassinations of senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and civilians. The United States also took part in the assault by striking Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities located in the central region of the country.

In retaliation, Iran’s Armed Forces launched precise strikes on the regime’s military and industrial infrastructure using advanced-generation missiles. Iran also hit back at the United States by targeting a strategic airbase in Qatar.

Twelve days after the start of the war, the occupying regime was compelled to announce a unilateral ceasefire, based on a proposal from Washington.

Here is the full text of the interview:

IQNA: In your assessment, what are the potential consequences of this escalation for regional peace and stability in West Asia and the broader Muslim world?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: In my opinion, the main consequence of any escalation between Iran and Israel is a multifront regional war. But more than that is the heightened risk of nuclear conflict in the region. This is more threatening since Israel is believed to have almost a hundred nuclear arsenals. Iran on the other hand will definitely accelerate its nuclear program and might consider nuclear weaponization. Essentially this means the collapse of any non-proliferation initiative and a nuclear arm race in the region. Consequently, this will lead to a long-term damage to any prospect for peace in the region. 

But in my opinion, in order to have a real lasting peace in the Middle-East, is to ensure the balance in nuclear power. Iran should be allowed to possess that capability as a deterrent and to put Israel in check. As a Muslim, I would say that the Quran exhorts us to have a military might that will put fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and hence; our enemies. In Sura al-Anfal; 8: 60, God says:

“Hence, make ready against them whatever force and war mounts (cavalries) you are able to muster that you might deter thereby the enemies of God, who are your enemies as well, and others besides them of whom you may be unaware, (but) of whom God is aware..”

In modern parlance in my opinion, the cavalry referred here in this verse, is of the nuclear capability.

IQNA: Do you believe the failure of the UN Security Council to condemn the Israeli attacks reflects a structural bias in international institutions? How should Muslim-majority nations respond to such inaction?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: In short, I would say yes! The failure of the UN Security Council to consistently condemn Israeli attacks, particularly during moments of heightened conflict in the region, has somehow reignited long-standing debates about structural bias within international institutions. The question is, does such inaction reflect an inherent flaw in the design and function of global governance structures? If we examine closely,  UN Security Council’s inability is basically a symptom of deeper systemic bias rooted in the architecture of international power itself. The essence of it lies in the veto power wielded by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. This privilege, allows any one of these countries to unilaterally block resolutions, regardless of the level of international consensus. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example, the US has frequently exercised its veto power to shield Israel from censure for its inhumane atrocities.

Our former PM, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had raised this issue before. The structural imbalance is very evident from the composition of the Council itself. We don’t see representation from Africa, Latin America, or Asia, which means that the perspectives of many nations, especially the Global South, are marginalized. As a result, issues that affect these regions, including that of the Iran-Israel war and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are often filtered through the geopolitical interests of a few powerful states, rather than approached through the lens of international law or humanitarian principles.

Such inconsistencies erode trust in the United Nations and contribute to the perception, and reality, of structural bias. When some countries are held accountable for violations while others are shielded due to their alliances with powerful states, it undermines the principle of equal sovereignty and the rule of international law. This dynamic perpetuates a system where the principles of justice and accountability are applied unevenly, leading to further instability and disillusionment among the affected nations. I believe, without meaningful reform, such as limiting the use of the veto or incorporating the Global South as members, the Council’s ability to function as an impartial arbiter of global peace is simply farcical.

On the second part of the question on how should Muslim-majority nations respond to such inaction, my simple answer is for the Muslim nations to reconsider their approach in international diplomacy and having a collective response. Sadly, this is easier said than done. We know that the greatest weakness among the Muslim nations has been fragmentation. They hold a potential collective voice, with OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which consists of 57 members, but unfortunately lacks unity in action. To me, this has been the main agenda of the superpowers to keep them disunited, by bringing up sectarian issues such as Sunni and Shia. Some of the [Persian] Gulf nations can even use their economic leverage strategically to defend the umma, but sadly, they are more subservient to the US instead with about 5-7 large scale US military bases in the Persian Gulf region itself.

IQNA: Iran has formally condemned the silence of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding US-Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities. Shouldn’t the IAEA be equally concerned about attacks on peaceful nuclear infrastructure, regardless of the country?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: In short, yes! The IAEA by its mandate has to be concerned about any attack on peaceful nuclear infrastructure regardless of which country is targeted. It holds a critical responsibility: to ensure the safety, security, and integrity of nuclear facilities worldwide, without political bias or geopolitical influence. The IAEA’s silence in response to the US or Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those involved in peaceful nuclear programs, raises questions about the consistency and credibility of the agency's role. Any armed attack on a safeguarded nuclear facility, irrespective of whether in Iran, Ukraine, or even Japan, should be met with strong concern or condemnation, especially if it threatens radioactive leakage, environmental harm, or civilian lives.

Surprisingly, the IAEA has responded vocally to threats near nuclear plants in Ukraine, issuing urgent appeals to protect nuclear safety; but was silent or muted, when Iran’s Natanz or Fordow facilities were attacked. This basically signals a troubling inconsistency, or simply hypocrisy, which fuels the perception of geopolitical bias. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and under extensive IAEA monitoring; but when the IAEA refrains from criticizing attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, it undermines the agency’s claim to neutrality. I have to stress here that upholding neutrality is not optional; it is fundamental to the IAEA’s legitimacy and effectiveness in a volatile global order.

IQNA: What role can Malaysia, as a leading Muslim-majority country and a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, play in mobilizing diplomatic efforts against Israel's aggression?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: I personally believe that as a prominent Muslim-majority nation and an influential member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Malaysia occupies a unique and strategic position to amplify diplomatic efforts against Israel’s aggression against Iran. We understand that Malaysia cannot directly prevent Israeli actions against Iran but it can play a pivotal role in shaping the global narrative, rallying international law, and also in mobilizing Global South solidarity.

I feel that as a trusted and principled voice in both the Muslim world and the Non-Aligned Movement, Malaysia has the diplomatic space to defend Iran’s sovereignty and to challenge militarized impunity without being drawn into bloc politics. To my opinion, by doing so, Malaysia not only affirms its commitment to justice but also strengthens the legitimacy of international norms under threat.

IQNA: Some argue that this moment is a critical test of Muslim unity. Do you believe the Muslim world has responded adequately to Israel's actions, particularly in defence of Iran as a fellow Muslim country?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: To the question of whether the Muslim world has responded adequately in defence of Iran, it invites a deeper reflection on both the state of intra-Muslim unity and the geopolitical realities that constrain it. While we have seen symbolic expressions of outrage, unfortunately the collective response has fallen short of demonstrating a cohesive, strategic, and principled solidarity.

As I said before, one of the core factors limiting robust support for Iran is the Sunni-Shia divide. This was amplified by decades of mistrust and rivalry between Iran and key Sunni Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Although recent diplomacy such as the Iran-Saudi rapprochement has a positive sign, it has yet to be translated into a coordinated defence or unified political front in the face of Israeli aggressions.

Subsequently, many Muslim-majority countries have adopted ambiguous or neutral stances, especially those aligned with Western powers or dependent on the US security guarantees. To me, this absence of a strong, collective condemnation of attacks on Iranian sovereignty reflects a political calculus that prioritizes national interests over pan-Islamic solidarity.

We noticed that the OIC’s response has been subdued, if not entirely absent. This silence obviously raises questions about double standards. Why is Palestinian suffering rightfully decried by many Muslim nations, while Iranian sovereignty is not defended with the same intensity and fervour?

IQNA: What message does the international community’s silence send to other countries that may consider similar acts of aggression? Are we witnessing a breakdown of international norms?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: I see that the international community’s silence in the face of Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, in particular the nuclear infrastructure, has grave implications that extend far beyond the Middle East. Inaction by Western and independent powers, signals a dangerous precedent, emboldening states to consider unilateral aggression without fear of consequences.

This silence is not neutral; it actively erodes the credibility of international law and undermines the global order. By ignoring blatant violations, the global community weakens the institutions it claims to uphold, such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), rendering them ineffective in deterring future aggression. This basically risks becoming a template for future acts of aggression, one in which states take justice into their own hands, and the global system retreats from accountability. It is not only Iran’s sovereignty at stake, but the integrity of the international order itself.

And to the second part of the question, the answer is yes! Yes, we are witnessing a breakdown of international norms. What was once upheld as a common framework for peace and accountability is increasingly seen as optional or manipulable. While the structure of global institutions remains, their authority and legitimacy are undermined by inaction, politicisation, and selective enforcement. To me, the consequences are already visible, and unless reversed, this breakdown could mark the transition to a new, more unstable international era, where might replaces right, and chaos replaces order.

 

IQNA: In your opinion, what long-term strategies should Muslim nations pursue to ensure that their collective voice is heard, and that such acts of hostility—whether against Palestine, Iran, or others—are not normalized or overlooked?

Ahmad Farouk Musa: This question requires a long elaboration, but I’ll just summarize it into a few sentences. To me, in the face of continued global injustices, from the suffering in Palestine to military hostilities against Iran, Muslim nations are at a critical crossroads. Despite the demographic, economic, and cultural strength of the Muslim world, their collective voice often remains marginalized in global forums. If Muslim-majority states are to counter the normalisation of hostility and defend international justice, they must adopt long-term, coordinated strategies that transcend rhetoric and focus on institutional, economic, and diplomatic leverage.

Without doubt, I can say that the marginalisation of Muslim voices and the normalization of aggression against them will persist unless Muslim nations shift from reaction to strategy. Through institutional reform, economic cooperation among the Muslim nations, narrative control, diplomatic diversification, and principled unity, they can ensure that injustice is not overlooked and that their collective dignity and sovereignty are defended.

I think the time for symbolic statements has passed, what is needed now is a coordinated and visionary geopolitical strategy. Allah says in Sura al-Baqarah; 2:143: “And thus We have willed you to be a community of the middle way, so that [with your lives] you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind, and that the Apostle might bear witness to it before you”.

The views and opinions expressed in this interview are solely those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Quran News Agency.

Interview by Mohsen Haddadi