North Korea condemns US strikes on Iran as violation of sovereign rights
North Korea said on Monday it strongly condemns the US strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities as a grave violation of a sovereign state's security interests and territorial rights, the country's state media reported.
The US and Israel are the culprits of the tensions in the Middle East born out of Jerusalem's 'ceaseless war moves and territorial expansion accepted and encouraged by the West', North Korea's foreign ministry said.
"(North Korea) strongly denounces the attack on Iran by the US which violently trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state,' an unnamed spokesperson said in a statement carried by KCNA news agency.
'The just international community should raise the voice of unanimous censure and rejection against the US and Israel's confrontational acts,' the statement said.
Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea have maintained friendly ties and have been suspected for decades of military cooperation, including in developing ballistic missiles.
A now-defunct panel of experts monitoring UN sanctions said in 2021 the two countries had resumed cooperation on long-range missile development projects, including the transfer of critical parts.
'Pyongyang could provide important assistance in helping Iran reconstitute destroyed missile production facilities, including at new sites to avoid scrutiny, perhaps,' said Ankit Panda of the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Whether either country would be interested in substantively cooperating on efforts to rebuild or accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme is less certain, given the political and military sensitivities over such technology, he said.
'There are matters pertaining to weapons design that the North Koreans would not want to proliferate because once in Iran, they could be discovered by the US and potentially assist the US in undermining its deterrent,' Panda said.
However, Pyongyang has substantive experience in weaponisation and could be able to assist in the non-fissile components of a nuclear bomb, such as the conventional explosives, he added.
North Korea has taken unprecedented steps in the past year to deepen military assistance to Russia, another partner of Iran, by sending thousands of troops and ballistic missiles and other weapons for use in fighting Ukraine, according to US, Ukrainian and other intelligence sources.
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
a day ago
- The Citizen
SA not ready for fallout if Israel-Iran ceasefire fails, warns UJ professor
As the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds, the world watches with bated breath to see what will happen next between the two regional powers. To gain insight into the situation, Caxton Local Media spoke to Dr Suzy Graham, professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg. Discussing the ceasefire, Graham explained that although it is still early days, the truce holds real potential, though it remains inherently fragile. 'Its longevity hinges on disciplined diplomacy, credible inspections, and political will from all actors. If any of these break down, especially due to hardliners or indirect aggression via proxies, the truce could unravel quickly,' she said. For now, however, the signs are cautiously optimistic. A ceasefire on edge: What's holding it together? Graham believes the ceasefire was primarily driven by a rapid cycle of escalation and daring diplomacy aimed at avoiding further catastrophic conflict. Although the ceasefire appears to be working, she warned that initial breaches from either side could lead to its deterioration. She described the thought of a third world war as unthinkable. 'Despite social media speculation, the probability of a full-scale World War III remains low, but not zero,' Graham said. South Africa's position: Legal, vocal, and diplomatic Speaking about South Africa's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict and how it aligns with the country's broader foreign policy, Graham said South Africa will almost always call for dialogue in any conflict situation. 'The South African government has been vocal in strongly condemning the recent military strikes on Iran, describing the attacks as violations of international law. It has urged all parties, Iran, Israel, and the USA, to engage in UN-led dialogue, emphasising diplomacy, restraint, and nuclear inspection,' she explained. Regarding the potential impact on South Africa if the conflict reignites and becomes a wider regional crisis, Graham said the country would likely continue championing international law, human rights, and nuclear non-proliferation. She noted that South Africa could strengthen its moral leadership among Global South and Muslim-majority countries. 'At the same time, the country could face intense backlash from Israel and Western allies, particularly the USA, Germany, and the UK, especially if Pretoria doubles down on its International Court of Justice genocide case or calls for sanctions. 'South Africa could see reduced goodwill from Western investors or governments, especially if tensions rise over its international legal campaigns or alignment with Iran.' 'In the immediate term, South Africa would likely call for a ceasefire, condemn aggression, and activate international and legal channels. In the short term, it might push for UN and BRICS statements and engage the African Union and Global South partners. 'In the mid-term, it would need to manage economic fallout, reinforce public diplomacy, and maintain BRICS plus solidarity. In the longer term, South Africa could use the crisis to push for UN Security Council reform, nuclear disarmament, and multipolar global governance.' Graham emphasised that if South Africa is drawn into the conflict, its role would be principled, vocal, and legalistic, not military. 'It may be drawn in politically, but not militarily,' she said. 'The country's focus would remain on shaping the normative global order, not engaging in hard power projection.' What escalation could mean for South Africa Although South Africa would not be militarily involved, Graham said a wider Middle East conflict would hit its economy hard, particularly through rising fuel prices, increased trade costs, and inflation. 'An escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict could seriously disrupt global oil flows, and South Africa, as an energy-importing nation, would feel the effects quickly and deeply. 'The country's inflation rate, currency, fiscal stability, and household livelihoods would all come under pressure.' When asked if South Africa is prepared for possible knock-on effects of war, such as cyberattacks or disruptions in trade, Graham said the country is not fully ready for the complex and interconnected consequences of a major regional war involving Iran and Israel. 'While it has some institutional frameworks and economic policy tools, South Africa lacks a coordinated national resilience strategy, particularly for cyber threats and maritime trade disruptions. 'A greater focus on strategic planning, inter-agency coordination, and public-private resilience building is urgently needed.' Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Diplomacy is not dead, the world has just forgotten how to use it
A satellite image shows the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated June 14, 2025 (MAXAR TECHNOLOGY/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS) Last week, the United States launched a large-scale aerial attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, dropping 30 000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The Strait of Hormuz has been . The question now is not whether diplomacy is dead in the Middle East, but whether anyone remembers what it looks like. And if they don't, we in South Africa should remind them. Just over three decades ago, our country faced what many believed was an irreversible path to civil war. Between 1990 and 1994, nearly 15 000 South Africans were killed in And yet, the leaders of this country – President FW de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, men from utterly different histories – chose dialogue over destruction. Together, they chose peace. They didn't just sign a document, they built the architecture of peace from scratch. They negotiated an What is happening now in Iran and Israel has its own unique causes. Since the collapse of the The US Israel, seeing this as an existential threat, launched pre-emptive strikes on The UN Charter, under If this sounds familiar, it's because history has shown us again and again what happens when diplomacy is abandoned and self-defence becomes synonymous with brutal force. But force is not policy. Bombs do not build stability. We know this because we have lived it. South Africa's transition succeeded not because we had the perfect Constitution waiting in a drawer or because our society had magically healed. It succeeded because both sides accepted that dialogue was less costly than bloodshed. They knew that without talks, there would be nothing left to govern. The But again and again, our leaders returned to the table. They understood that the process – imperfect, fragile, maddening – was more powerful than any one grievance. And this is the same lesson that must be applied in the Middle East. We must believe that there is nothing inevitable about war between Israel and Iran. Just as the Yes, Oslo ultimately failed. But its failure was not a repudiation of diplomacy; it was a failure of political courage to sustain it. The same can be said of the JCPOA. It was an imperfect but effective mechanism to prevent nuclear escalation. Iran complied . The international community verified . But it was unilaterally abandoned in 2018. The current crisis is the direct result. We know that diplomacy is not a naïve ideal. It is the first principle of international law. The Under And we have, over the years, seen other nations learn this. These were not miracles. They were choices. What would it take for the Middle East to choose peace? First, open channels unconditionally. Mandela Quiet diplomacy – through back-channels, third-party intermediaries, or regional platforms – is not weakness. It is how war is prevented. Second, include all parties. In South Africa, the ANC, the National Party, the IFP and even fringe groups were eventually brought into dialogue. In the Middle East, that means involving not just the US, Iran and Israel, but also the Gulf States, Turkey and actors like Hezbollah that hold sway over real conditions on the ground. Exclusion breeds sabotage. Inclusion creates accountability. Third, restore or renegotiate the nuclear deal. The JCPOA's technical architecture can still serve as a basis for limiting enrichment, lifting sanctions and guaranteeing regional security. The cost of inaction (or even indifference) is far greater than the political difficulty of re-engagement. Fourth, create guarantees. Whether through the UN or a new regional mechanism, a peace framework must include verification, economic support and political cover for leaders taking risks . Finally, appeal to people, not just governments. Leaders must prepare their populations for compromise. In South Africa, that meant referendums, unity talks and mass civic engagement (like the United Democratic Front). It was not easy. But it worked. The FW de Klerk Foundation believes in constitutionalism, dialogue and international law. We do not pretend that every context is the same, or that South Africa's path is easily copied. But we do know that peace is possible, even when it seems impossible. That truth is not negotiable. And it is not too late. Let the world remember that the best outcomes are built not from domination, but from diplomacy. Let the Middle East remember that peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of dialogue. And let the leaders of today remember that if Mandela and de Klerk could forge a new country from the ashes of division, then surely, even in the rubble of conflict, nations can find a path back to peace. Ismail Joosub is Manager of Constitutional Advancement at the FW de Klerk Foundation.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
World War III: A Continental Response
General view of a Security Council Meeting on the Israel-Iran conflict at United Nations headquarters on June 24, 2025 in New York. The Israeli government said it had agreed to the US-proposed ceasefire after achieving all of its objectives in the war with Iran, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailing a "historic victory". Armed forces chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said Israel's strikes had set back Iran's nuclear programme "by years" while Netanyahu vowed to thwart "any attempt" by Iran to rebuild it. The world is experiencing escalating conflicts rippling across the Middle East, Eurasia, Asia, and Africa. In a dramatic escalation, the US (United States) launched missile strikes at Iran targeting suspected nuclear facilities–triggered by Israel's confrontation with Iran. Weeks of crossfire between the two countries saw the US involved noting its longstanding nuclear policy towards Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. The flames of war are fanned by hostilities and changing global alliances, threatening to ignite multiple conflicts globally. In the Middle-East, Iran has responded to the US by launching an attack on its US base in Al Udeid, Qatar. Preceding this attack, Gulf countries–Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain have been engaging in coordinated response drills. Due to rising regional security tensions, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has taken the precaution of partially activating its emergency response centre. Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza continue to suffer under Israeli military actions, with Iran backing Hamas in a manner comparable to Israel's support for the Iranian dissident group, the People's Mujahedin of Iran. In Asia, the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has intensified, with Iran's ties to Shia militias and Israel's cooperation with India subtly shaping the broader regional dynamics. In the days following the exchanges between Iran and Israel, oil prices surged between 7-11 percent following initial strikes. One third of the world's seaborne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Prolonged disruption would add $500 Billion to the Asian continent's annual import bill. China has emphasised diplomacy calling for international efforts to ease tensions between Israel and Iran. Africa is facing a multitude of challenges as the Iran-Israel-US war progresses. Brent crude prices are set to skyrocket due to disruptions faced in the Strait of Hormuz. Refined import to countries such as Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal are also impacted. The continent remains divided over the Iran-Israel-US conflict, with some countries like Algeria, Sudan (pre-normalisation), and South Africa–contemplating the closure of its Israeli Embassy–historically leaning toward Iran often citing solidarity with Palestine. In contrast, others such as Morocco, Egypt, and Kenya maintain strong security and economic ties with the US and, in some cases, formal or informal relations with Israel. The war between Russia and Ukraine has been a major source of instability in Eurasia. Iran has supported Russia with its war against Ukraine–diplomatically and militarily–mirroring the US and Europe's support for Ukraine. As Netenyahu warns the US of an Iranian threat, Zelensky has warned that Russia may soon expand its military operations across Europe, prompting the continent to prepare for possible escalation. In the Americas, the US has ramped up preparations for a potential military confrontation with China and Russia and its recent attack on Iran serves as a clear warning to its geopolitical rivals. Sanctioned Cuba, a long-time ally of both Iran and Russia, condemned the US for escalating tensions in the Middle East. Further south, Brazil is set to host the upcoming BRICS summit, where peacebuilding and diplomatic solutions are expected to top the agenda. The Iran-Israel conflict has rapidly evolved into a global crisis with far-reaching consequences. In the Middle East, military engagements and regional defence coordination have intensified. Asia faces possible economic shocks due to energy disruptions, while African allegiance is divided grappling with fuel shortages and diplomatic fractures. Eurasia remains on edge from the enduring war in Ukraine. The Americas are divided—between US militarism and Latin American ambivalence. This moment underscores the collapse of isolated conflicts in favour of a deeply interconnected world, heightening the risk of global insecurity. Cole Jackson Lead Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Chinese & Latin American Specialist ** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
