"I ask that the CBC revisit this story with a follow-up that identifies the illegality of attacking nuclear facilities under international law, acknowledges how these attacks disrupted active diplomatic negotiations, critically examines commentary from ideologically driven think tanks such as RUSI, and incorporates perspectives from nuclear non-proliferation experts whose analysis prioritizes diplomacy and de-escalation."
June 17, 2025
Dear CBC editorial team and Mr. Brown,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) regarding your June 13 article, “Israel’s strikes on Iran just the latest step in Netanyahu's plan to reshape the Middle East.” While the article offers a comprehensive look at Israel’s motivations and strategic posture, it excludes essential legal, diplomatic, and analytical context that would allow readers to critically understand the broader implications of Israel’s actions on Iran.
Your article reports that “Israel says it hit at least 100 targets, including several nuclear facilities,” yet it makes no reference to the fact that such attacks violate international law. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has clearly stated that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.” As Director General Rafael Grossi recently told the UN Security Council, Israel’s strikes on facilities like Natanz caused radiological and chemical contamination within the site and posed significant risks to regional and international nuclear safety. Presenting these strikes without acknowledging their illegality misleads the public and minimizes their danger.
The article also cites the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), describing Iran’s response as a “strategic humiliation.” Yet RUSI is a British defense think tank historically aligned with the military-industrial complex and Western interventionist policies. Framing RUSI as a neutral source lends unwarranted credibility to a militarist analysis and reinforces a narrative that valorizes pre-emptive violence without considering the immense human and geopolitical costs.
Moreover, your article does not mention that. at the time of the strikes, U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations were actively underway, with proposals for a regional nuclear consortium on the table. As detailed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, both Iran and the United States had floated models for multinational enrichment, with oversight by IAEA inspectors and participation from regional partners like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This path, however tentative, offered a viable route to transparency and stability. Instead, Israel’s strikes not only derailed those talks but also killed Ali Shamkhani, a senior Iranian official tasked with overseeing the negotiations. These facts highlight the degree to which this attack may have sabotaged diplomatic efforts with long-term consequences for regional peace.
Furthermore, the Bulletin and other independent experts have warned that military attacks on nuclear facilities historically lead Iran to escalate its nuclear efforts. As one analysis from the bulletin put it, “You cannot bomb away a nuclear program.” Rather than halting proliferation, such attacks may strengthen hardline positions and accelerate the very developments they are meant to prevent.
Lastly, I would encourage CBC to consult and consider featuring expert voices such as Kelsey Davenport, Director for Non-proliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, and Richard Nephew, Senior Research Scholar and Adjunct Professor at Columbia University. Both participated in a recent video panel by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on this escalation and would offer measured, qualified perspectives for a potential follow-up. We strongly recommend that your editorial team review that panel discussion.
In closing, I ask that the CBC revisit this story with a follow-up that identifies the illegality of attacking nuclear facilities under international law, acknowledges how these attacks disrupted active diplomatic negotiations, critically examines commentary from ideologically driven think tanks such as RUSI, and incorporates perspectives from nuclear non-proliferation experts whose analysis prioritizes diplomacy and de-escalation.
Mr. Brown has a reputation for thoughtful and well-researched reporting. I hope the CBC will uphold its public mandate by providing coverage that reflects the regional as well as international geopolitics of these high-stakes events.
Sincerely,
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)