OMSAC Report: Who Has the Right to Nuclear Arms? Violated Sovereignty and Global Silence in the Israel-Iran Confrontation

⚠️ PRELIMINARY WARNING

This document, prepared by the OMSAC Department of Integrity & Investigation, is a comprehensive legal analysis intended for publication and dissemination to the global public, international institutions, civil society organizations, and the media. It reveals alarming facts and demonstrates the urgent need to restore the international rule of law in the face of escalating unilateral and violent behaviors between states.

1. General Introduction

Humanity is currently confronted with an existential question: Who has the right to possess nuclear weapons? And under what rules? The ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran revolve around this taboo question, intertwining national sovereignty, deterrence, the right to security, and illegal proliferation.

This document aims to expose violations of international law within the context of nuclear tensions, particularly through targeted assassinations, covert military operations, and the so-called doctrine of "preventive security" invoked by some states.

2. The Legal Framework of Nuclear Weapons Possession

2.1 The NPT: A Two-Tiered Legal Regime

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in force since 1970, officially recognizes only five nuclear powers: the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. These nations committed to preventing proliferation and pursuing disarmament. However, none has fully honored this obligation.

2.2 States Outside the NPT

Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are not parties to the NPT or have withdrawn from it. Israel, in particular, refuses to confirm or deny its nuclear weapons capability, maintaining a policy of "strategic ambiguity."

This situation creates a blatant inequality: some states possess nuclear weapons with impunity, while others are threatened or attacked based on mere suspicions.

3. International Monitoring Bodies

3.1 The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)

As the central oversight body, the IAEA inspects nuclear facilities of NPT signatories. Israel refuses these inspections, unlike Iran, which cooperated for several years.

3.2 The UN Security Council

Sadly, the Council is often paralyzed by the veto power of nuclear states, preventing any clear and credible condemnation of violations committed by nuclear-armed countries.

4. The Legitimacy of Preventive Military Strikes

4.1 International Law is Clear: Preventive Attack is Illegal

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force, except in cases of self-defense against an actual armed attack (Article 51). A potential or future threat does not justify a preventive strike.

4.2 The Case of Israel

Israel justifies its actions against Iran by invoking the doctrine of "preventive self-defense." This concept is widely rejected by legal scholars and international institutions.

5. The Targeted Assassinations of Iranian Scientists: A State Crime

5.1 The Facts

Since 2010, several Iranian scientists and researchers have been assassinated on Iranian soil. Iranian authorities and media attribute these killings to operations conducted by Israel’s Mossad. Among the victims:

• Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan (2012)

• Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (2020)

• Other figures involved in civil nuclear programs

  
  

In recent days, the Israeli military has publicly claimed new assassinations of civilian researchers within Iran. That such acts are not only committed but also openly claimed without consequence represents an unprecedented level of disregard for international law. Can civilians be killed like pests, in full view of the world, without any official condemnation?

5.2 Legal Qualification

These assassinations violate:

• The Right to Life (ICCPR, Article 6)

• International Humanitarian Law (if in wartime)

• National Sovereignty (UN Charter, Article 2)

They constitute extrajudicial executions, acts of state terrorism, and international crimes.

6. The Duty of the International Community

The international community must end the impunity of states that:

• Repeatedly violate international law

• Refuse international inspections

• Resort to force without authorization

Law must not be applied selectively. A world where power overrides legality is a world heading toward collapse.

7. Conclusion: Toward Universal Application of International Law OMSAC calls for:

• The public and legal condemnation of targeted assassinations of civilians

• UN Security Council reform to limit the abuse of veto powers

• Equality of nations before international law

• Referral to the International Court of Justice to assess state responsibility

  
  

Global peace and justice can only be guaranteed through full and impartial respect for international law. The era of the law of the strongest must give way to the supremacy of universal law.

How is it possible that a Prime Minister targeted by an international arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity travels freely across Europe and the United States, leads a war against a sovereign state, and is welcomed with honors instead of being arrested? Is this not the ultimate sign of the collapse of international justice?

Legal Department – OMSAC