NATO GAMBLES , AS 5% INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING DECIDED BY NATO ALLIANCE.

Defence affairs analysis

In a historic decision that reflected worries about a more unstable world, leaders of NATO decided to increase defense spending commitments to 5% of GDP by 2035.

In a historic decision that reflected worries about a more unstable world, leaders of NATO decided to increase defense spending commitments to 5% of GDP by 2035 at the June 2025 summit. In a time of ‘global competition,’ NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte emphasized that ‘Europe and North America must stand strong together in NATO to defend our values and our interests,’ particularly as ‘authoritarian regimes like Russia and China challenge the rules-based order.’ Reactions to this emphasis on collective defense were divided; some allies believe it is essential in light of Russia’s war in Ukraine, while others fear it could lead to a risky arms race. Even historically neutral or non-aligned nations are keeping a close eye on things; analysts point out that such drastic actions force countries (and leaders like China’s and Russia’s) to carefully balance how they respond.

Russia and China have already expressed extreme caution. China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, cautioned that ‘peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force,’ but he also said that there was still hope for diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear issue. Beijing has also openly criticized NATO’s increasing emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. Lin Jian, the spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, urged the alliance to ‘stay out of the Asia-Pacific region,’ while Beijing’s EU mission condemned NATO’s language as ‘full of Cold War mentality and belligerent rhetoric.’ Similarly, NATO’s spending goals were criticized by Moscow’s leadership: A NATO arms race, according to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, might even ‘lead to the collapse’ of the alliance, wondering who was actually getting ready for violence. The tightrope China and Russia are walking as NATO intensifies is highlighted by these responses, which range from entreaties to outright insults. One Western analyst noted that Beijing’s claim of neutrality has been referred to as ‘hollow’ and that NATO’s communications now ‘explicitly define China’s responsibility’ in the conflict in Ukraine. Both nations responded with cautious concern after NATO’s summit signaled a clear threat assessment of China and Russia nonetheless.

Israel’s Preemptive Strikes on Iran and International Law

In the meantime, an unprecedented conflict has erupted in the Middle East. Israel launched the first-ever airstrikes against top IRGC commanders and nuclear facilities deep inside Iran on June 13. These strikes killed hundreds of people and forced civilians to flee. On June 22, the U.S. joined this campaign and, working with Israel, launched massive attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Washington’s involvement in these incidents has come under intense criticism. According to a United Nations fact-finding mission, some Israeli strikes ‘may have violated international law’ by killing civilians, including three aid workers, and not giving enough warning. The Israeli attacks and the U.S. involvement have been referred to as ‘illegal aggression’ by the Iranian government and numerous international observers. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ‘has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action’ against Iran, according to Iran’s UN ambassador Amir-Saeid Iravani.

NATO’s stated support for the rules-based order was brought into stark relief by these events. Despite talking about international law, alliance members have supported or implicitly accepted a military attack on a sovereign, NPT-signatory state without UN approval, according to critics who point out the apparent double standard. In plain terms, this conflict was justified under the pretext of non-proliferation, but it essentially ‘exploited’ peaceful nuclear rules to justify force, as Iran’s envoy stated. Diplomats are aware of the irony: while NATO warns of China and Russia violating standards, its allies participated in historic strikes on Iranian targets, a move that has drawn criticism from numerous international leaders and nongovernmental organizations.

Donald J. Trump’s Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites and His Rhetoric

The announcement of the June 22 strikes was spearheaded by U.S. President Donald Trump. He called the operation ‘a spectacular military success’ and said that Iran’s main enrichment facilities had been ‘completely and totally obliterated’ in a nationally televised speech. He underlined that in an effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, 14 B-2 stealth bombers dropped ‘bunker busters’ on Fordow and Natanz, and Tomahawk missiles hit Isfahan. Alongside Defense Secretary Hegseth, Vice President Vance, and Secretary of State Rubio, Trump issued a warning to Iran that it ‘must now make peace’ or face even more severe future attacks. ‘All planes are now outside of Iranian airspace,’ he proudly posted on social media: ‘BOMBS were dropped in full payload. THE TIME FOR PEACE IS NOW!’

Trump’s dramatic claims were immediately disputed at home. According to intelligence leaked from congressional briefings, the damage could only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, far less than the decades he claimed. Republicans applauded the action at a closed Senate briefing, while Democrats accused the administration of circumventing Congress by using the War Powers Act to demand answers. The word ‘obliteration’ was appropriate, according to close Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham, who said that ‘nobody is going to work in these three sites any time soon’ and that ‘they blew these places up in a major-league way.’ Sen. Chris Murphy and other lawmakers, however, cautioned that Trump was ‘misleading the public’ by inflating the impact. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, criticized the postponed briefing, called for transparency, and urged Congress to regain its power. To put it briefly, the strikes turned into a political hot spot as Trump and his supporters presented them as unmistakable evidence of his ‘peace through strength’ stance, while Democrats questioned their strategy and legality.

Iran’s Nuclear Program, the NPT, and the JCPOA

Considering Iran’s standing under international law, the more pressing question is why these strikes were even carried out. The NPT, which expressly permits peaceful nuclear development under IAEA safeguards, is still in effect, and Iran is still a party to it. The IAEA had previously attested to Iran’s adherence to the terms of the 2015 agreement (JCPOA) on multiple occasions before the attacks. Experts and European leaders maintained for a long time that Iran was fulfilling its obligations. Under the agreement, the IAEA has published ‘ten reports certifying that Iran has fully complied with its commitments,’ according to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. After Trump’s 2018 withdrawal, French President Emmanuel Macron issued a warning that if the agreement fell through, ‘the nuclear non-proliferation regime is at stake.’ The U.S. withdrawal was also ‘deeply regretted’ by British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson in 2018, who emphasized that the UK remained committed to stopping Iran from producing bombs.

As one Iranian diplomat put it, rather than protecting rights to peaceful nuclear energy, international law in practice ‘has been exploited as a pretext for aggression’ against his country. Therefore, critics contend that bombing a peaceful NPT signatory’s nuclear site without UN approval violates the very international norms that Trump once professed to support. In 2018, despite the protests of allies, Trump himself rescinded the JCPOA, reimposing sanctions and forcing Iran to resume enrichment. Russia, China, and the EU have all protested the U.S. actions in 2025, which have now drawn similar international censure. In fact, U.S. strikes ‘mark a perilous turn’ in the region, according to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Many foreign observers, as well as Iranian officials, point out the contradiction: the United States attacked Iran’s facilities under the pretext of preventing proliferation after leaving a treaty that Iran was upholding.

IAEA Assessment and the Aftermath of the Strikes

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hurried to determine whether there was any damage in the immediate aftermath. Rafael Grossi, the head of the agency, called an urgent meeting to assess the situation. The IAEA reported no increase in off-site radiation levels at the bombed sites, which made the initial findings noteworthy for what they did not show. In a similar vein, Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization declared that post-strike surveys in the vicinity of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan revealed ‘no contamination recorded.’ Iranian officials even asserted that ‘no irreversible damage’ had been done because Fordow had been evacuated beforehand. The AEOI declared in public that any setbacks were ‘temporary’ and that it would rebuild, vowing that its nuclear program would continue unabated.

These evaluations call into question the president’s audacious claims. Analysts pointed out that even with bunker-busters, deeply buried facilities like Fordow are very difficult to destroy, and U.S. military officials did not provide independent evidence of total destruction. Trump’s claims were not yet supported by concrete proof of long-term harm, according to one bipartisan analysis. This ambiguity was reflected in the conflicting opinions in Congress: while some Republicans maintained that the sites were ‘obliterated,’ others (including many intelligence professionals) warned that Iran might reassemble its program. In any event, despite the president’s claims, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may not have been ‘totally obliterated’ due to the scant damage that has been found. Now, observers stress that sanctions and diplomatic pressures, not just airstrikes, will continue to influence Iran’s program in the future.