The United States has conducted strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites, an action authorized by President Donald Trump that aligns the U.S. with Israel’s ongoing conflict with Tehran. The move has triggered a wave of diverse international reactions, sparking widespread concern and urgent calls for de-escalation amidst heightened fears of a wider regional conflict.
President Trump claimed the strikes were highly successful and had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities, reportedly targeting complexes at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Speaking Saturday night, Trump asserted, “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”
Iran swiftly condemned the action, issuing a “grave new warning” of “everlasting consequences.” Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi denounced the strikes as a “grave violation” of the U.N. Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly egregious coming from a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Araghchi labeled the U.S. actions “extremely dangerous, lawless, and criminal,” stating Iran reserves its right to legitimate self-defense under the UN Charter and has called for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.
Global Reactions: A Spectrum of Views
Reactions from world leaders and international bodies varied significantly, highlighting deep divisions on the legitimacy and wisdom of the U.S. military action, though a dominant theme of urging restraint and diplomacy emerged.
Support and Understanding
While many nations urged caution, some expressed support or understanding for the U.S. action.
Israel: A key partner in the conflict, Israel strongly backed the strikes. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised President Trump for the “bold decision” and an act of “strength,” stating it would “change history” and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, aligning with a “peace through strength” philosophy shared by both leaders. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called it a “decisive moment” for global security.
Czechia: Prime Minister Petr Fiala called the strikes an “understandable effort” to curb Iran’s nuclear program, hoping it would lead to a “calmer situation.”
Argentina: President Javier Milei, a right-wing ally of Trump and Netanyahu, did not directly comment on the strikes but re-posted a message from a prominent businessman hailing the day as “a great day for Western civilization.”
Strong Condemnation
Numerous countries explicitly condemned the strikes, often citing violations of international law and the risks of escalation.
China: China “strongly condemn[ed]” the action, seeing it as exacerbating Middle East tensions and violating the UN Charter and international law. Beijing urged all parties, particularly Israel, to implement a ceasefire and begin dialogue.
Russia: Moscow echoed this, calling the airstrikes a “dangerous escalation” and a “gross violation” of international norms, including the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolutions, urging an end to the “aggression.”
Oman: A mediator in nuclear talks, Oman “denounced” the strikes as an “unlawful act of aggression” and a “flagrant violation” of international law, specifically raising concerns about targeting nuclear facilities which are prohibited under the Geneva Conventions due to contamination risks.
Chile: President Gabriel Boric condemned the strikes as illegal, stating power doesn’t permit violating international law, even for the United States.
Pakistan: Pakistan condemned the strikes as violating “all norms of international law,” affirming Iran’s legitimate right to self-defense and emphasizing the need to respect civilian lives and adhere to international humanitarian law.
Iraq: The Iraqi government expressed “deep concern and strong condemnation,” warning the attacks threatened peace and stability and posed serious risks to regional stability.
Cuba & Venezuela: Both nations strongly condemned the bombing as a “dangerous escalation” and a violation of the UN Charter and international law, with Venezuela explicitly stating the bombing was carried out “at the request of the State of Israel.”
Iran-aligned Groups: Groups identified as part of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” such as Hamas and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, also condemned the U.S. action.
Urgent Calls for De-escalation and Diplomacy
The most prevalent reaction from capitals around the world was a pressing call for de-escalation and a swift return to diplomatic solutions, reflecting widespread alarm over the volatile situation.
United Nations: UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed being “gravely alarmed,” describing the strikes as a “dangerous escalation” in a region “already on the edge” and a “direct threat to international peace and security.” Guterres stressed there is “no military solution,” urging dialogue as the “only path forward” to avoid a “spiral of chaos” with potentially “catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world.”
European Union: The EU, represented by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the bloc’s top diplomat, stressed that while “Iran must never acquire the bomb,” stability requires diplomacy and respect for international law. They urged Iran to engage in a “credible diplomatic solution,” stating the “negotiating table is the only place” to resolve the crisis.
France, Germany, & United Kingdom: These European powers, along with Canada, reiterated their firm opposition to Iran gaining nuclear weapons but uniformly called for restraint and a return to negotiations. Leaders emphasized the volatile situation and the need for a diplomatic solution within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Germany specifically noted its belief the strikes had “damaged large parts of Iran’s nuclear programme” but stressed the need for diplomacy. The UK acknowledged the U.S. action aimed to alleviate the threat but highlighted regional instability.
Other Nations: Calls for de-escalation, dialogue, and peaceful resolution were also voiced by Australia, Canada, India (whose Prime Minister spoke directly with Iran’s President), Ireland, Japan (“grave concern”), Mexico (“urgently” called for dialogue based on pacifist principles), New Zealand (finding military action “extremely worrying” and favoring diplomacy), and Spain. Several Gulf States including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE also expressed deep concern, urging restraint, de-escalation, and intensified international efforts for a political resolution to prevent further instability.
Vatican: Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace and international diplomacy during his Sunday address, calling for weapons to be silenced.
Amidst these reactions, questions remain about the extent of the damage from the strikes, with no immediate independent verification of President Trump’s claims of “total obliteration.” The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced an emergency meeting to address the “urgent situation” and confirmed no detectable radiation had been uncovered thus far as a result of the military attacks. Ukraine’s President Zelensky did not state support or condemnation but noted ongoing citizen evacuations from both Israel and Iran.
As the world watches Iran’s next move, the dominant international message from a wide range of capitals is clear: the path to stability in the volatile Middle East lies in de-escalation and dialogue, not further military confrontation, despite the shared international goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.