Israel’s offensive in Iran breaches the Geneva Conventions:
On 13 June, Israel launched a series of coordinated airstrikes on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities and military installations. Reports indicate that the operation also involved the targeted assassination of nuclear scientists and senior Iranian military officials. According to preliminary figures, the attacks killed about 70 Iranians and injured more than 320.
In swift retaliation, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the strikes as a criminal act, stating that Israel had “opened its dirty and bloody hand to a crime” by deliberately targeting civilian areas. He warned, “The powerful hand of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic will not let Israel go unpunished.” Iranian military spokesperson Abolfazl Shekarchi echoed the threat, warning that Israel would pay a “heavy price” for its actions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the operation as a strategic effort to degrade Iran’s nuclear programme and its ballistic missile production. Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir described the strikes as a turning point, claiming that Israel had reached a “point of no return” in a “fight to preserve our existence”.
But this narrative has drawn sharp criticism. Increasingly, Israel’s invocation of a “right to exist” is viewed as a hollow justification. Critics argue that Israel’s portrayal of itself as a perpetual victim serves to deflect accountability, even as it continues to occupy and destabilise the Middle East. If Israel feels threatened, it is a consequence of its own sustained aggression and regional occupation.
Israel’s assault on Iran cannot be divorced from Tehran’s longstanding support for the Palestinian cause. As a central pillar of the “Axis of Resistance” — a regional alliance that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, various Iraqi militias and the Yemeni Houthis — Iran has consistently backed armed and political groups resisting Israeli occupation and Western influence. This support, especially its material and strategic assistance to Palestinian factions in Gaza and the West Bank, has long made Iran a target of Israeli hostility.
Analysts suggest that the June 2025 strikes were not merely pre-emptive attacks on nuclear infrastructure, but also punitive measures intended to weaken Iran’s capacity to support Palestinian resistance. Israel’s actions signal an attempt to fracture the regional coalition that has coalesced around opposition to Zionist expansionism and US hegemony in the Middle East. In this context, the offensive appears not as an isolated act of self-defence, but as a broader geopolitical move to dismantle the Axis of Resistance and deter solidarity with Palestine.
Despite its declared military objectives, Israel’s airstrikes caused significant damage to residential areas and civilian infrastructure in Tehran, raising serious concerns under international humanitarian law. These actions violate the principle of distinction, which prohibits attacks on civilians and civilian objects; the principle of proportionality, which forbids excessive civilian harm relative to anticipated military advantage; and the obligation to take precautions in attack to minimise civilian casualties. Civilian infrastructure is protected under Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
Moreover, Israel has not demonstrated lawful self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, meaning the operation constitutes an unlawful use of force. These violations amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians and disproportionate attacks.
The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed that radioactive contamination caused by the attack on the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was successfully contained and reported no casualties at the site. Nonetheless, the targeting of nuclear sites poses grave humanitarian and environmental risks, including potential radiation leaks and contamination with effects that can last for centuries.
Confirmed targets of the Israeli operation included:
- Tehran, including nearby military facilities;
- Natanz, where the main uranium enrichment facility was hit;
- Tabriz, near a nuclear research centre and two military bases;
- Isfahan, located south of the capital;
- Arak, in southwestern Iran; and
- Kermanshah, near the Iraqi border, where an underground ballistic missile depot was struck.
Following the attacks, Israel’s military issued a warning: “Anyone who tries to challenge us will pay a heavy price.” This statement reinforces Israel’s image as a belligerent state that disregards core principles of international law, including those recently affirmed by the International Court of Justice.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that the Natanz site was hit, and its director, Rafael Grossi, stated that the UN is monitoring radiation levels and is in contact with Iranian authorities and on-site inspectors. But the IAEA has yet to acknowledge Iran’s official nuclear policy, which emphasizes peaceful nuclear technology, a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, and adherence to Khamenei’s fatwa banning nuclear weapons.
This transparent stance stands in stark contrast to Israel’s ambiguous and undisclosed nuclear arsenal. In 2023, former Israeli minister Amichai Eliyahu openly suggested that using nuclear weapons against Gaza was “an option,” later adding that Gaza had “no right to exist” and threatening all those supporting Hamas or Palestine. Although Eliyahu was indefinitely suspended from the government, his remarks strongly imply that Israel not only possesses nuclear weapons, but also entertains their potential use.
These developments raise urgent questions about the absence of international nuclear inspectors in Israel, and the inadequate response from the IAEA and the UN Security Council. As Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian stated: “The UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency must take immediate and uninterrupted action to disarm this barbaric and apartheid regime.”
The international response to Israel’s assault has once again exposed the deep double standards of Western powers. While Western governments have swiftly condemned similar or lesser actions by other states — often invoking human rights, international law, and the UN Charter — they remain largely silent or issue only tepid statements when it comes to Israel. The same actors that vocally denounce aggression elsewhere have repeatedly shielded Israel from accountability, even in the face of clear violations of international humanitarian law.
This selective outrage not only undermines the credibility of international legal norms but also emboldens Israel to act with impunity. The disparity in response highlights a geopolitical bias where the rules-based international order is applied unequally and used as a weapon against adversaries, but disregarded when violations are committed by allies or strategic partners.
In failing to hold Israel accountable, the international community risks legitimising the suppression of resistance movements and entrenching cycles of impunity and occupation across the region.
Sõzarn Barday is a writer and attorney based in South Africa and has a particular interest in human rights in the Middle East. Opinions shared represent her individual perspective.
(Re)centre youths in city planning:
The African Union estimates that about 60% of Africa’s population will live in urban areas by 2030. This highlights the importance of urban spaces in the governance discourse. One of the unique elements of Africa’s urbanisation is that, demographically, the cities are very young.
For example, in South Africa, youth (defined as ages 15 to 35) make up just over 34% of the population. Of this percentage, the National Youth Development Agency estimates that roughly 63.4% live in urban areas, specifically in Gauteng and the Western Cape.
Despite young people making up a significant demographic in cities, youth are often excluded from policy and decision-making processes. Furthermore they are more vulnerable to some of the most acute problems that have come with urbanisation such as unemployment, poverty and violence. For instance, according to the most recent Labour Force Survey (Q4 2024) 44.6% of young people are unemployed in South Africa; this translates to roughly 4.7??million people.
As 16 June, South Africa’s national youth day, approaches, we should reflect on how we can do better for young people and, more specifically, how our cities can be (re)designed to address some of the key challenges that young people face.
Urban planning is important for how cities function and develop over time. This in turn has an effect on other governance focuses from access to and quality of service delivery, quality of life and addressing socio-economic issues. But cities do not exist in a vacuum and thus decisions that were taken in the past continue to shape the present and future.
Specifically in the context of South Africa, cities were intentionally designed to segregate and control, and undermine people’s dignity. This meant that for post-apartheid local governments, the challenge was not only to deliver services to informal settlements but also try to redress the unjust legacies of the racist policies that were ingrained into the very fabric of South African cities.
One of the most difficult issues since 1994, for instance, was how to incorporate townships and informal settlements into the formal functions of the city, not just from a service delivery point of view but also from a developmental one. Consider Cape Town. Forced removals, prohibitively high property prices and ineffective transport (and other) policies have pushed many to live in settlements all around the city. This has further reinforced the spatial dislocation wrought by apartheid which makes searching for work, and transport to work, exceedingly expensive.
A 2022 YouthCapital report on the cost of looking for work highlighted how the spatial layout of cities has worked against young job-seekers. The report shows that young people spend more than R900 a month to look for work, with a large percentage of this going towards transport and data costs. Despite many frameworks and policies being proposed to address the issue of youth unemployment, there has not been sufficient discussion around removing spatial barriers that put financial strain on job-seekers, further entrenching inequality and poverty.
Urban planning and spatial design can directly address some of these issues by designing and implementing policies that are centred on empowerment, supporting and improving information and communication technology to reduce the need to travel, and to cut travel costs through better designed public transport infrastructure.
Outside of looking for jobs, the spatial design and layout of a city can also be used to promote the development of small businesses and entrepreneurship. This is particularly relevant in the South African context as the informal economy accounted for 19.5% of the total employment in the fourth quarter of 2024. This makes it the second-largest job creation sector in the country. But the informal sector is often overlooked in policy discussions, with local governments either working to remove these spaces, such as the continued fining and removal of street traders, or ignoring them completely.
This sector is a key opportunity for local governments to support and facilitate youth entrepreneurship. One way to do this is through better connecting these markets to the wider city, through designated market spaces for entrepreneurs and customers, improving public safety and improving access to basic services to make it easier for people to do business.
In light of this, not only is urban planning important for youth in job creation but also for enhancing youth entrepreneurship.
Last, urban and spatial design is important for improving and supporting people’s quality of life and overall wellbeing. Often with urban development, the focus is on ways to maximise economic output, but cities and people are more than just their economic value or output. Cities are made up of communities, families and support structures that create and replicate social values and interactions.
As a result, centring youth in cities will allow them to not only realise their potential but also encourage them to create, build community and have fun.
But the urban experience is often marred by a complex set of issues that intersect across social, economic and historical lines. This has made cities increasingly unfriendly towards young people, especially for the most marginalised.
Therefore, there needs to be a greater emphasis on making cities more inclusive and community orientated.
Scholarship on urbanisation has become increasingly focused on this idea of inclusive development. It expands the idea of development beyond the traditional economic or political issues, exploring how cities can be moregreen, community orientated and equitable. In the South African context, many NGOs and communities are creating spaces such as dance groups and art and crafts centres, helping people not only to explore and create but also create community.
Community is important especially when looking to make cities more friendly, because it creates a sense of belonging and support, which can help young people stand against destructive activities such as gangsterism.
While these are just a few ways of centring youth in the conversation about urban planning and development, it highlights a crucial need for more inclusiveness in urban policy. Over the past two decades, a number of urban policies and frameworks have been introduced and revised, but there seems to be a misalignment about who these policies are for.
Perhaps it’s time to rethink who we want to build cities for and what we want our cities to be.
Stuart Morrison is a data analyst in the Governance Insights and Analytics team at Good Governance Africa.
Government worried about safety of South Africans in Iran:
South Africa is concerned about the safety of its citizens in Iran, while calling for Israel and the Islamic Republic to de-escalate a conflict that has killed hundreds of people in four days.
“South Africa expresses deep concern regarding the escalation of hostilities between the state of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the ministry of international relations said.
It deplored the loss of civilian lives in the ongoing exchange of missile attacks between Israel and Iran.
Dozens of civilians, including 30 children, have been killed in Iran since Israel on Friday launched strikes on the country, targeting its energy and military infrastructure in attacks that killed nuclear scientists and senior army commanders.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has termed it a pre-emptive operation aimed at halting Iran’s progress towards developing nuclear weapons.
In Israel, at least 14 people were killed on Sunday as a retaliatory barrage brought down an apartment block south of Tel Aviv. Israeli authorities said on Monday another eight people were killed overnight as missiles struck sites across Israel, including an apartment building in the central city of Petach Tikva.
“South Africa emphasises that under international humanitarian law, civilians and civilian infrastructure must never be considered legitimate targets,” the ministry said.
“We reiterate our urgent call for de-escalation, restraint and full compliance with international law by all parties to prevent further human suffering.”
The ministry urged South Africans in Iran to contact the country’s embassy in Tehran to communicate their whereabouts. But it cautioned that Pretoria’s diplomatic network in Iran was limited and that South Africans could not count on in-person consular assistance in case of a security emergency.
“Therefore citizens are further encouraged to assess their own safety and security and act accordingly.”
The conflict is expected to dominate discussions between world leaders at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, where they had been expected to focus on the war in Ukraine and the Trump administration’s tariff regime.
President Cyril Ramaphosa is attending the summit, which formally commences on Monday. In March his office rejected suggestions by the US state department that South Africa was working with Iran to develop nuclear arms.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
