Israeli security forces deployed after an Iranian missile strike on Haifa, June 20, 2025. (Credit: Shir Torem/Reuters)
As the Middle Eastern sky ignites following the massive Israeli strikes on June 13 against Iranian targets, the U.N. Security Council has become the scene of a fierce diplomatic battle.
On the eve of an emergency public meeting called at Tehran's request, two letters, submitted on June 17 and 18, stand in opposition to each other.
The one from Israel claims an operation of "self-defense" against the Iranian nuclear threat. The one from Iran denounces a "premeditated" military aggression conducted "in coordination with the U.S." — two incompatible narratives, two opposing visions of international law.
Between the lines, there is an existential confrontation.
Israel: 'last window for action'
In his letter to the Council president, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar says Iran constitutes an "existential and imminent" threat to Israel. The strikes on June 13, which targeted more than 100 Iranian sites — including nuclear facilities, missile factories, command posts and key figures in the nuclear program — are presented as a surgical, legal and inevitable operation.
"Diplomacy has failed," he writes, claiming that Iran has rejected all international efforts to limit its nuclear capabilities, including those of the IAEA. Israel claims to have acted "in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter," which guarantees every state the right to self-defense.
Moreover, Israel asserts it seized "the last window of opportunity to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."
However, beyond neutralizing nuclear infrastructure, the letter hints at a broader objective: to reorganize the regional strategic balance.
In subsequent remarks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to suggest that the operation could lead to a regime change in Tehran. This declaration has revived the worst fears of an uncontrollable regional spiral.
Tehran: 'Illegal war, Washington complicit'
In response, the letter from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, sent to the Council the following day, is unequivocal. The tone is offensive, the accusations grave.
Israel is accused of launching a "massive, premeditated, and deliberate military operation" against civilian and humanitarian installations, including hospitals, residential areas, the headquarters of the Iranian Red Crescent, as well as civilian nuclear sites under IAEA surveillance.
Tehran directly accuses the U.S. of being "fully coordinated" with Israel in this offensive, citing a flagrant violation of Iranian sovereignty and international law. The letter calls on the Security Council to condemn Israel unequivocally, prevent further attacks and take "binding measures" against Tel Aviv.
Tehran reaffirms its right to self-defense, which it claims to exercise "with restraint," while promising to continue its responses as long as the aggression persists and the Council fails to fulfill its role.
Military theater
Events on the ground provide a most worrying backdrop to this war of letters.
The Israeli attack on June 13 targeted, among others, the Natanz nuclear site, the country's main uranium enrichment center. According to Rafael Grossi, director of the IAEA, above-ground installations were damaged, and satellite images revealed "direct impacts" on underground structures. The Isfahan nuclear research complex was also hit.
Radiation levels remained normal, but the alert is at its highest.
Iran retaliated with drone strikes and ballistic missiles against Israel. Most were intercepted, but several hit military and civilian targets, including a hospital complex.
The provisional toll as of June 16 was 24 dead on the Israeli side and over 200 dead and 1,200 injured in Iran, according to the Health Ministry, 90 percent of whom are civilians.
Washington in ambush, Europe balancing
In Washington, Donald Trump hailed the Israeli offensive as a necessary show of strength. He mentioned possible direct American participation in a second phase of operations, notably to hit the underground site of Fordow, known to be invulnerable without the use of sophisticated penetrating weapons.
A decision is expected "within two weeks," announced the White House. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already warned that any American military involvement will result in "irreparable" reprisals.
Meanwhile, discussions on the Iranian nuclear program, which had timidly reopened, are suspended. Tehran canceled the next negotiation session with the U.S. scheduled for June 15, while maintaining contacts with Europeans. Araghchi is expected to meet his French, German and British counterparts in Geneva, without American presence.
Security Council an impotent arbiter?
The June 20 meeting will feature speeches by U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo and the Director General of the IAEA.
During their previous intervention on June 13, both called for restraint. DiCarlo warned against a "regional conflagration with global consequences." Grossi, for his part, reminded that "no nuclear facility shou ld ever become a military target."
However, within the Council, the lines of fracture remain clear: Algeria, Russia, China and Pakistan support the Iranian position; the U.S. defends the Israeli operation; France and the United Kingdom navigate between preventing nuclear proliferation and calls for de-escalation.
As the Security Council bogs down in diplomatic balances, the bombs continue their work. The question remains whether the U.N. can still act to end the war or if it will merely manage its consequences.
This article was translated from L'Orient-Le Jour.
