Attacking nuclear sites crosses a line: Indonesia’s moral warning to the world

When Indonesia’s Foreign Minister, Sugiono, addressed the emergency summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul last week, his message was brief but unequivocal: “Under no justification can any party deliberately target nuclear facilities. This is not just a breach of international law—it is a threat to all of humanity.” This strong statement came in the aftermath of Israel’s 23 June airstrike on Iran’s Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites, which sent shockwaves not only across the Middle East but also throughout the international community.

The targeting of nuclear infrastructure is more than just a military tactic; it threatens the delicate balance of international norms and raises existential risks that transcend borders. Indonesia’s warning is thus not mere diplomatic posturing but a significant intervention, reflecting the growing anxiety among nations, particularly in the Global South, about the erosion of the laws of war and the alarming normalisation of high-risk military actions.

The attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities represents a worrying escalation in a long-standing conflict between Israel and Iran, which itself is entangled with proxy wars and regional rivalries. Israel justified the strikes as a preventive measure against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, framing them as a necessary act of defence. However, the international legal framework is clear: nuclear facilities, especially those embedded within civilian areas, are protected from military attacks under the Geneva Conventions and their protocols.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) quickly condemned the strikes, emphasising that such attacks “pose unacceptable humanitarian and environmental risks that can last for generations.” Nuclear facilities are not conventional military targets; damage to them can unleash radioactive contamination with catastrophic, long-term effects on human health and the environment, which no amount of military justification can ethically or legally excuse.

Indonesia’s vocal stance at the OIC summit underscores its evolving role as a significant moral and diplomatic actor in global affairs. As the largest Muslim-majority democracy, Indonesia occupies a unique space, being able to engage both with the Muslim world and the broader international community without the geopolitical entanglements that constrain many Middle Eastern states. Its historical support for Palestinian sovereignty further enhances its credibility within the Islamic world, while its policy of active non-alignment enables it to voice concerns without being perceived as partisan.

In April 2025, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto expressed a willingness to consider formal diplomatic relations with Israel, but only contingent on the full recognition of Palestinian statehood—a position that blends pragmatism with principle. This approach signals Indonesia’s readiness to act as a bridge between competing interests, emphasising dialogue and justice over uncritical allegiance.

The risks posed by the attack on nuclear sites extend far beyond the immediate conflict zones. The 2011 Fukushima disaster provided a stark reminder of how radioactive contamination can traverse thousands of kilometers, carried by atmospheric currents. Experts from institutions such as the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warn that a serious breach at Iran’s Natanz facility could result in radioactive fallout spreading across the Gulf, into South Asia, and potentially as far as Aceh and other parts of Indonesia during certain seasonal wind patterns. These transboundary effects highlight how the consequences of such attacks are truly global, underscoring the need for international cooperation to prevent escalation.

Furthermore, the economic ripple effects are already being felt across Southeast Asia, where Indonesia, a major importer of urea and ammonia fertilizers derived from natural gas produced in the Gulf, is bracing for supply disruptions amid soaring energy prices. This situation illustrates how conflicts in distant regions can have direct and tangible impacts on countries thousands of miles away, affecting food security and economic stability.

Indonesia’s appeal at the OIC summit is also emblematic of a larger geopolitical shift, wherein countries from the Global South are increasingly asserting themselves as defenders of international law and moral order. The post-Cold War international system has often been criticised for its double standards and the dominance of great powers whose interests override universal principles. In this context, Indonesia, along with fellow emerging powers like Brazil, South Africa, and Malaysia, champions a vision of global governance rooted in justice, sovereignty, and collective security.

Indonesia’s leadership in establishing the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) serves as a regional model for non-proliferation and disarmament, and Jakarta’s proposal to extend this framework conceptually to the Middle East through the OIC demonstrates ambition and foresight. While establishing such a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East presents significant diplomatic challenges, the very proposition reflects Indonesia’s commitment to proactive peacebuilding and the protection of vulnerable populations.

The international community’s complacency in the face of repeated violations of the laws of armed conflict is troubling. Civilians in Gaza, Syria, and Yemen have suffered devastating consequences of protracted wars, often with scant accountability or effective intervention from global institutions. The deliberate targeting of nuclear infrastructure, however, raises the stakes to unprecedented levels. It is not merely a matter of civilian casualties or destruction of property; it threatens the survival of ecosystems and human populations for decades to come. Indonesia’s unequivocal condemnation is a necessary reminder that some lines—especially those involving weapons and facilities capable of mass, long-lasting harm—must never be crossed, regardless of the complexities of geopolitics or the rhetoric of security.

Indonesia’s call for action is also a call for international solidarity and the strengthening of multilateral institutions. The OIC, the UN, and other global bodies must translate moral declarations into binding treaties and enforcement mechanisms to prevent the militarisation of nuclear facilities. Silence or inaction risks normalizing the unacceptable and paving the way for catastrophic incidents in other volatile regions. Indonesia’s leadership in this regard exemplifies how middle powers can influence global norms, providing alternative diplomatic pathways that emphasise restraint, respect for international law, and human security.

In these times of heightened global tensions and fractured diplomacy, Indonesia’s voice serves as a beacon of reason and moral clarity. It challenges the international community to confront uncomfortable truths and prioritise humanity over narrow strategic interests. The world must heed Indonesia’s warning: nuclear sites are not legitimate targets, and attacks against them threaten us all. It is incumbent upon all responsible nations to act decisively and ensure that the next reactor is never turned into a battlefield. Only through collective resolve and adherence to international norms can we hope to avert the escalation of conflicts that endanger the very fabric of life on Earth.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.