Israel Attacks Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Global Fallout and Strategic Shifts

Israel Iran Strike 2025

Israel Iran Strike 2025 Latest News

  • On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major strike on Iran, targeting nuclear and military sites in Tehran, killing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard chief and two top nuclear scientists. 
  • The attack marks a dramatic escalation in the Israel-Iran shadow war, raising fears of a broader regional conflict amid growing tensions over Iran’s advancing nuclear programme.

Iran's Nuclear Programme

  • Iran claims its nuclear programme is dedicated solely to civilian and peaceful purposes, such as energy production and medical research. 
  • It operates multiple nuclear facilities across the country, some of which were recently hit in Israeli strikes.

Global Skepticism Persists

  • Despite Iran’s assertions, many countries and the IAEA remain unconvinced, suspecting military dimensions to the programme. 
  • Concerns centre on Iran’s lack of transparency and its refusal to fully explain the presence of undeclared nuclear material.

IAEA Declares Non-Compliance

  • For the first time in two decades, the IAEA Board of Governors formally declared Iran in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. 
  • The resolution cited multiple failures, including the lack of credible answers regarding nuclear activities and stockpiles.

Near-Weapons-Grade Enrichment

  • Earlier IAEA reports revealed that Iran has enriched uranium up to 60% purity, dangerously close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons. 
  • This stockpile could, in theory, be used to produce up to nine nuclear bombs, raising alarm across the international community.

Israel’s Long-Planned Strike Comes to Fruition

  • Israel’s attack on Iran marks the culmination of years of planning. Long opposed to the 2015 nuclear deal, Israel had already carried out clandestine operations.
  • This includes the 2020 assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and the 2014 bombing of Iran’s embassy in Damascus. 
  • The latest assault targeted Iran’s nuclear sites, missile facilities, residences of top generals, and over two dozen scientists—making it the most severe blow to Iran since the 1979 revolution.

The Fall of Assad and the Collapse of Iran’s Regional Axis

  • The regional power dynamic shifted dramatically after Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. 
  • Israel’s response included strikes on Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Syrian forces
  • The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024—who had served as a strategic bridge between Tehran and Hezbollah—severely weakened Iran’s deterrence network, known as the “axis of resistance.” 
  • With this axis dismantled and Iranian defences exposed, Israel saw a narrow window to strike.

Trump's Return and the Strategic Shift

  • President Donald Trump’s re-election introduced a new but aggressive diplomatic posture. 
  • Though he initially delayed Israel's planned May attack to explore negotiations, his administration aimed to force Iran into a new deal that eliminates its nuclear program entirely. 
  • With talks stalling, Trump backed the June Israeli strike, using it as leverage. 

Rising Tensions and Immediate Fallout

  • The escalation triggered an 8% surge in global oil prices, raising fears of prolonged instability and global supply chain disruptions.

India’s Energy Vulnerability

  • India, which imports over 80% of its crude oil, faces serious risks even though direct imports from Iran are limited. 
  • Global price hikes and potential supply chain disruptions could significantly increase import costs, impacting inflation and energy security.

Strait of Hormuz: A Strategic Chokepoint

  • About 20% of global oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, situated between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. 
  • Conflict in this area could disrupt oil supplies from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—India’s key energy partners.

Export Routes and Shipping Costs Affected

  • Rising conflict could close access to the Suez Canal and Red Sea, forcing Indian exporters to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope, adding 15–20 days of travel time and raising container costs by 40–50%.

Oil Prices May Stabilise, But Gold Surges

  • Experts predict the oil market will stabilise, citing ample global reserves and diversified supply. 
  • However, gold prices soared above ₹1 lakh per 10g, as investors moved towards safe-haven assets amid geopolitical uncertainty and broader inflationary fears.

Source: IE | ET | ToI

Israel Iran Strike 2025 FAQs

Q1: Why is Israel opposed to Iran-US nuclear talks?

Ans: Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as a threat and prefers military action over negotiations or enrichment concessions.

Q2: What did the IAEA report on Iran reveal?

Ans: It declared Iran non-compliant, citing secret nuclear activities and increasing enriched uranium levels, prompting international concern.

Q3: What is the status of Iran-US nuclear negotiations?

Ans: Talks are ongoing. Iran insists on sovereign enrichment; the US deems it unacceptable. Neither side has walked away.

Q4: What happens if Iran leaves the NPT?

Ans: It would collapse the talks. US law prevents nuclear concessions to non-NPT countries, killing diplomatic efforts.

Q5: How does Netanyahu’s domestic situation affect foreign policy?

Ans: Facing political pressure, Netanyahu may escalate tensions with Iran to avoid elections and rally national support.

Centre’s FRA Cell Initiative: Boosting Implementation of Forest Rights Act

Forest Rights Act Implementation

FRA Cell Initiative Latest News

  • The Union government has started funding structural mechanisms to “facilitate” the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

Introduction

  • For the first time since the enactment of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in 2006, the Union government has initiated direct structural support to streamline its implementation. 
  • Under the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyaan (DAJGUA), the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has approved the establishment of over 300 district and State-level FRA cells across India. 
  • This strategic push is aimed at assisting Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers in exercising their legal rights over forest land and resources.

The Forest Rights Act and its Decentralised Framework

  • The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 was enacted to correct historical injustices faced by tribal communities and forest dwellers. 
  • It decentralised the recognition of rights to the Gram Sabha, which in turn sets up Forest Rights Committees (FRCs)
    • These committees work with Sub-Divisional Level Committees (SDLCs) and District Level Committees (DLCs) to process claims.
  • Until now, the onus of implementing FRA was entirely on State governments and Union Territories, with the Centre offering only advisory support. 
  • However, limited coordination, delayed committee meetings, and lack of field-level assistance have led to 14.45% of total claims still pending, as of March 2025.

Role and Structure of FRA Cells

  • The new FRA cells, sanctioned under the DAJGUA scheme launched in October 2024, aim to provide technical and administrative support without intervening in statutory decision-making. These cells are tasked with:
    • Assisting claimants and Gram Sabhas in preparing claim documents.
    • Aiding in collection of necessary evidence and resolutions.
    • Helping in digitisation of land records and tracking claim status.
    • Facilitating conversion of forest habitations into revenue villages.
  • To date, 324 district-level FRA cells have been approved across 18 States and Union Territories, along with State-level FRA cells in 17 regions. The Centre funds these cells through the Grants-in-Aid General route, while operational control lies with State Tribal Welfare departments.
  • Each district-level cell receives a budget of Rs. 8.67 lakh, while State-level cells are allocated Rs. 25.85 lakh. States like Madhya Pradesh (55 cells), Chhattisgarh (30), and Telangana (29) lead the count in terms of sanctioned FRA cells.

Divergence from FRA’s Statutory Process

  • Despite the declared facilitative nature, forest rights activists have raised concerns about these cells creating a parallel implementation mechanism that exists outside the statutory framework of the FRA. 
  • The original law clearly delineates roles for Gram Sabhas and statutory committees, which cannot be superseded by an administrative scheme.
  • Critics argue that many responsibilities assigned to the FRA cells, like assisting with documentation and verifying evidence, already fall under the remit of statutory bodies. 
  • The risk, they note, is the creation of confusion at the grassroots level over who is responsible for which task.
  • Moreover, structural gaps such as infrequent DLC/SDLC meetings and inaction by Forest Departments on approved claims continue to hinder progress, issues that mere creation of new units may not solve.

DAJGUA’s Broader Vision

  • The DAJGUA scheme integrates 25 tribal welfare interventions across 17 ministries to uplift over 68,000 tribal-majority villages. FRA implementation is just one pillar of this initiative. The overarching goal is to expedite delivery of rights, improve governance, and ensure development reaches the most marginalised.
  • The operational guidelines state that FRA cells must function under the directives of State governments, aligning with existing legal and administrative frameworks. Their scope is supportive, not supervisory, ensuring that statutory powers remain unaffected.

Balancing Institutional Innovation with Legal Integrity

  • While the Centre’s direct involvement marks a major policy shift in supporting FRA implementation, success will depend on the clarity of roles and cooperation between central and State authorities. 
  • If implemented carefully, these FRA cells can bridge capacity gaps, reduce pendency, and empower Gram Sabhas.
  • However, the approach must be inclusive and transparent, ensuring that the legal sanctity of the Forest Rights Act is preserved. Any deviation from the statutory process could dilute the law’s purpose and undermine the trust of forest-dwelling communities.

Source : TH

FRA Cell Initiative FAQs

Q1: What are FRA cells sanctioned under the DAJGUA scheme?

Ans: FRA cells are administrative units set up to assist in claim preparation and data management under the Forest Rights Act.

Q2: Who controls the operations of FRA cells?

Ans: While funded by the Centre, FRA cells operate under the guidance of State Tribal Welfare departments.

Q3: What is the aim of setting up these FRA cells?

Ans: The primary goal is to reduce pendency in FRA claim disposal and support Gram Sabhas and claimants.

Q4: How many FRA cells have been sanctioned so far?

Ans: As of June 2025, 324 district-level and 17 State-level FRA cells have been sanctioned across 18 States and UTs.

Q5: Why have activists raised concerns about FRA cells?

Ans: Critics fear that FRA cells may create a parallel structure outside the law, leading to confusion and overlap in responsibilities.

IAEA Declares Iran Non-Compliant: What It Means for Global Nuclear Security

IAEA Iran Non-Compliance

IAEA Iran Non-Compliance Latest News

  • The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors passed a resolution declaring Iran in breach of its 1974 Safeguards Agreement, citing concerns over unexplained uranium traces at multiple sites. The vote saw opposition from China, Russia, and Venezuela, with 11 abstentions. 
  • A day later, Israel launched "preliminary strikes" on Iranian nuclear facilities and declared a domestic state of emergency.

IAEA Safeguards Agreements

  • IAEA Safeguards are embedded in legally binding agreements. 
  • In line with the IAEA’s Statute, States accept these Safeguards through the conclusion of such agreements with the Agency.
  • As of May 2023, the IAEA has concluded comprehensive safeguards agreements with 182 countries, primarily non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT. 
  • These agreements are the most common type and are designed to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear material.

1974 Safeguards Agreement

  • The 1974 Safeguards Agreement refers to a legally binding accord between Iran and the IAEA, concluded under the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
  • Inventory and Reporting Obligations
    • Iran is required to:
      • Declare and maintain a detailed inventory of all nuclear materials.
      • Provide design information of any nuclear facility handling such materials.
      • Notify the IAEA before constructing or modifying any nuclear facility.
  • Inspections
    • The IAEA is authorized to conduct routine, ad hoc, and special inspections.
    • Iran must allow access to facilities, materials, and relevant documents to verify compliance.
    • Surveillance equipment like cameras and seals may be installed at key locations.
  • Verification Mandate
    • The IAEA must be able to verify that there is no diversion of declared nuclear material to weapons-related programs.
  • Non-Compliance Consequences
    • If Iran fails to meet its obligations, the IAEA can:
      • Report the breach to its Board of Governors.
      • Notify all IAEA member states.
      • Refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions or take other measures.

IAEA Resolution Marks a Turning Point

  • For the first time, the IAEA Board of Governors formally declared Iran non-compliant with its 1974 Safeguards Agreement, paving the way for potential escalation to the U.N. Security Council. 
  • The resolution follows years of urging Iran to cooperate and was welcomed by several Gulf states.

IAEA Invokes Rare Article XII.C Powers

  • The IAEA Board of Governors, empowered by Article XII.C of its 1957 statute, has formally cited Iran for non-compliance. 
    • Thus far, this Article has been invoked only six times: against Iraq (1991), Romania (1992), North Korea (1993), Iran (2006), Libya (2004), and Syria (2011).
  • This provision enables the Board to demand corrective measures, suspend technical aid, and escalate the issue to the U.N. Security Council if Iran fails to respond satisfactorily.

Iran Under Scrutiny, Technical Projects at Risk

  • The IAEA currently operates around $1.5 million worth of peaceful nuclear projects in Iran, including in medicine and water desalination. 
  • These could now be curtailed if Iran does not cooperate.

Verification Challenges and Safeguard Breaches

  • Under its 1974 Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, Iran must provide nuclear material inventories, notify about new facilities, and allow inspections. 
  • The IAEA, however, has stated it is unable to verify the absence of nuclear material diversion for weapon use—a key safeguard failure.

Next Steps: Security Council in Sight

  • Iran has a limited window to respond to IAEA queries. If it fails to comply, the Board may escalate the matter to the U.N. Security Council, which could respond with statements, binding resolutions, or renewed sanctions. 
  • A follow-up IAEA vote is likely in September 2025.

Israel Responds with Strikes and Warnings

  • In response, Israel launched early morning strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and reiterated its position that it will not permit Iran to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels (90%).

Iran Denounces Resolution, Plans Retaliatory Steps

  • Tehran condemned the resolution as politically motivated and announced plans to build a new underground enrichment facility, upgrade centrifuges at Fordow, and implement “proportional measures”. 
  • Following Israeli attacks, Iran placed its air defence system on high alert, while Israel reported Iranian drone mobilisations.

Source: THIAEA  | ToI

IAEA Iran Non-Compliance FAQs

Q1: What did the IAEA resolution say about Iran?

Ans: It formally declared Iran in breach of its nuclear obligations under the 1974 Safeguards Agreement for the first time.

Q2: Why was Iran declared non-compliant by the IAEA?

Ans: Due to unexplained uranium traces and failure to provide inventory and facility data required under the Safeguards Agreement.

Q3: What is Article XII.C of the IAEA statute?

Ans: It empowers the IAEA Board to suspend aid and report non-compliance to the UN Security Council in severe breaches.

Q4: How could this affect Iran’s nuclear projects?

Ans: $1.5 million worth of peaceful nuclear projects in Iran may be suspended if Tehran continues to defy IAEA requirements.

Q5: What are the next steps for the IAEA?

Ans: If Iran doesn’t respond, the IAEA may escalate the issue to the UN Security Council for sanctions or further action.

Enquire Now