While the ceasefire between Israel and Iran is still effective, it is possible to take a deeper look at the positions of the main international and regional actors regarding this war, its implications, and the expected consequences at the regional and international levels.
The US administration has followed a parallel path, first by joining the military operation alongside Israel against Iran, and later by intervening to impose a ceasefire.
Senior US officials issued a series of high-profile political and media statements and worked to rally international support, especially within the Western alliance, behind the intervention. This became evident when official voices from the UK, Germany, and NATO emphasised the need to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, without addressing the legality of the Israeli and, later, the US attacks on Iran.
These Western positions were reiterated during the emergency session of the UN Security Council on 22 June, held at Iran’s urgent request to discuss the US attacks against it.
The US efforts also included trying to exert repeated pressure on France, though not particularly successfully, to refrain from declaring or adopting any stance that might appear independent from the general Western position on the Israeli and then US attacks on Iran. Conversely, some Western countries, such as Spain, clearly rejected the use of military means to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. They called for a return to negotiations and a peaceful resolution to the crisis, warning of a potentially uncontrollable regional war.
Regarding the positions of other influential regional and international powers, Washington launched a counter-offensive against Russia’s stated position, which came relatively late, days after the Israeli attacks started, but intensified following the US airstrikes. Russia condemned the attacks on Iran, and in response the US revived a Western diplomatic and media campaign against Russia’s war in Ukraine, adopting a heated and contentious tone in the context of “reopening old files.”
However, on 24 June, US President Donald Trump announced that Russian President Vladmir Putin had called him and offered assistance in achieving a ceasefire in what appeared to be a new gesture of de-escalation towards Russia.
The United States is expected to adopt similar stances with China, in the light of both Russia and China’s positions at the Security Council opposing military action against Iran and condemning the bombing of nuclear facilities protected under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.
Both countries called for resolving disputes solely through peaceful means. However, it remains to be seen how the US will respond to Turkey’s clearly critical stance on the Israeli and US military strikes against Iran, deeming them contrary to international legitimacy. This is particularly noteworthy given the unique US-Turkish relationship, Turkey’s NATO membership, and Turkey’s keen interest in maintaining strong ties with Iran specifically and the Arab and Islamic world more broadly.
At the level of international organisations, the US faces a long-term diplomatic battle at the United Nations in an effort to gain some victories or at least contain and mitigate its losses. This is particularly the case as the Iranian foreign minister addressed a letter to the president of the Security Council on 29 June asking it to declare the legal responsibility of both Israel and the US regarding the attacks against Iran.
This battle may be easier in the Security Council, where the US has veto power against any resolution Iran or other countries might submit, than it would be in the General Assembly, where there is a broader base of opposition to the current US administration’s foreign policies.
The US may also face international embarrassment if Iran or another country requests an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the recent Israeli and US attacks against Iran. In his speech during the Security Council session on 22 June, the UN Secretary General took a relatively “balanced” stance, warning Iran against withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Another legal and diplomatic battle awaits the US and Israel at the IAEA. The agency’s director-general has issued several statements condemning military attacks on nuclear facilities under its safeguarding regime, labelling them as violations of the agency’s decisions, relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and relevant provisions of international law.
He has repeatedly warned of the dangers of military strikes on nuclear facilities, which could lead to radioactive and nuclear leaks with serious regional consequences. It is to some degree expected that in its upcoming intergovernmental meetings the IAEA will be asked by Iran to strongly support its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, unless Iran decides to withdraw from the NPT, as some Iranian officials have hinted it might be in recent days.
It should not be overlooked that Iranian officials also warned in the two days preceding the ceasefire that Iran might close the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation if the attacks against it escalated and the alliance of its enemies in the war is broadened. This is a serious issue to consider for the future, as Iran is undoubtedly capable of closing the strait militarily. Such a move would negatively impact the regional countries, the world at large, global trade, and the energy sector in particular.
Finally, it is worth recalling that following Iran’s attacks on the US Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, many Arab and Islamic countries expressed their support for and solidarity with Qatar, condemning the attacks but also clearly warning against the escalation of regional tensions. These are already high because of the continuing Israeli war on Gaza and are holding out the danger of a possible fully-fledged regional war on peace, security, stability and development, not only in the region, but also in the world as a whole.
*The writer is a diplomat and commentator.
** A version of this article appears in print in the 3 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: