Israeli Aggression on Iran Offers 3 Key Lessons for Global South: Academic
This is according to Dina Yulianti Sulaeman, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Indonesia’s Padjadjaran University.
She made the statements in an online event titled “Iran’s Dignity and Power; A Message beyond Missiles,” organized by IQNA on Saturday. The event came following a 12-day US-Israeli aggression on Iran and the country’s mighty defense against aggressors.
She noted that the aggression teaches the Global South to pursue self-reliance, independent diplomacy, and re-evaluation of international bodies.
What follows is the full video and text of Sulaeman’s statement
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today, I speak before you not only as a scholar of geopolitics but as a human being concerned with the moral collapse of our so-called international system.
Let us begin with a scene from June 2025.
The world was watching with hope as Iran and the United States were making progress in nuclear negotiations. After years of tension and mistrust, both sides had expressed satisfaction. There were real possibilities of a peaceful agreement.
But then, in the middle of this progress, Israel launched a surprise military attack on Iran. Soon after, the United States joined in, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities—facilities that were under the legal supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Now ask yourself:
• Is this what diplomacy looks like?
• Is this how international law works?
From a legal point of view, the answer is very clear. These attacks were a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits any use of force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country.
Read More:
Professor Marko Milanović, a respected expert in international law, called Israel’s action a “crime of aggression”—one of the most serious crimes under global law.
But the response from international institutions—the UN, the IAEA, the so-called guardians of global order—was silence.
Silence in the face of aggression.
Silence in the face of injustice.
Silence that speaks louder than any words.
Even worse, humanitarian laws were broken.
Reports confirmed that the attacks hit civilian areas near military sites. The most shocking was the bombing of a Red Crescent vehicle that was delivering humanitarian aid. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects humanitarian missions during war. This was not just an illegal act. It was a potential war crime.
Yet once again, the global institutions issued only vague statements calling for “restraint” and “de-escalation.” They refused to name the violators. They refused to act. And in that refusal, they showed us their true nature.
Ladies and gentlemen,
This is not about Iran alone. This is part of a larger pattern, a pattern we have seen again and again in Palestine.
For more than 75 years, the Palestinian people have suffered illegal occupation, home demolitions, blockade, and military violence. Thousands have died. Millions live without basic rights. And yet, the UN Security Council, because of the U.S. veto, has failed to take any meaningful action.
Read More:
Iran, on the other hand, has stood consistently in defense of the Palestinian cause.
Not for political gain. Not for power. But because standing with the oppressed is a moral duty. Iran has supported the right of Palestinians to resist occupation, to live with dignity, and to exist as a free people.
But what has Iran received in return? Sanctions. Threats.
And now, direct attacks on its territory—with no consequences for the attackers. Why? Because the rules of the game are not the same for everyone.
Let’s look at a simple comparison:
• When Iran enriched uranium to 60%—still within peaceful limits—it was condemned by the IAEA and sanctioned.
• But when Israel destroyed the Natanz nuclear facility, which was under IAEA supervision, the agency only published a technical report. No condemnation. No international outrage.
This is what we call a double standard. And double standards destroy the legitimacy of international institutions.
How can we trust these institutions when they apply the law to some, but allow others to act with complete impunity?
Let us be honest:
The UN and IAEA were created after World War II with the promise of preventing another global catastrophe. But their structure tells a different story.
• The UN Security Council gives veto power to five countries—the US, UK, France, China, and Russia.
• That veto has paralyzed global justice, especially when it involves allies of these powers.
And the IAEA, which should be an independent technical body, is pressured by political interests, especially those of the United States and its European allies.
So we must ask:
Are these institutions truly neutral?
Or are they legal facades—beautiful on the outside, but hiding the ugly truth of power politics?
For countries like Iran and the Global South, these events are not just political setbacks—they are lessons.
• Lessons that self-reliance is essential.
• Lessons that independent diplomacy is necessary.
• Lessons that trust in international institutions must be re-evaluated.
At the same time, this crisis is a wake-up call for the global community.
Read More:
If we do not reform the structure of the UN—especially the veto system,
If we do not demand that the IAEA apply its rules equally,
If we do not establish accountability for all violators of international law,
Then we are heading toward a future without justice, without peace, without trust.
Ladies and gentlemen,
What we are witnessing is more than a war between countries. It is a battle between law and lawlessness, between justice and hypocrisy.
Iran’s defense of Palestine is not just about geopolitics. It is about principle.
It is about refusing to remain silent when children are bombed in Gaza.
It is about saying no to the arrogance of power that ignores international law when it becomes inconvenient.
Let us not be fooled by the elegant speeches in New York or Vienna.
Let us listen to the silence when the bombs fall.
Let us hear the absence of justice in the halls of the Security Council.
And let us respond not with despair, but with clarity:
The time for reform is now.
The time for honest leadership is now.
And the time to stand with the oppressed—even when it is unpopular—is now.
