In an age of climate urgency and energy scarcity, nuclear power is on the cusp of being rediscovered. This time not as a Cold War relic, but as a lifeline. It offers countries seeking low-emission, high-reliability power what few other sources can: Base load stability in an increasingly unstable world.
Yet, just as it gains renewed relevance, it’s facing a new kind of threat — becoming a target. From Israel’s recent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to military activity around Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, we are witnessing the erosion of a longstanding principle: That nuclear facilities must be protected, in war and peace.
These are not isolated incidents. While echoing past precedents like the Israeli strikes on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria’s Deir ez-Zor in 2007, these instances also reflect a new, troubling trend. Civilian nuclear infrastructure is now being treated as a strategic target. A red line once widely respected is being crossed with frequency.
This pattern signals a slow collapse of a global understanding that, however imperfect, has helped avert catastrophe. This shift carries numerous risks not just for the countries involved, but for the world. One miscalculation, one errant strike, could spark a radiological disaster, endangering thousands and contaminating entire regions.
International law provides clear protection. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits attacks on “works and installations containing dangerous forces”, including nuclear plants, from which civilian harm could result. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has, in many resolutions, condemned strikes on safeguarded nuclear facilities as violations of international law and the UN Charter.
Israel has justified its ongoing actions against Iranian nuclear sites as acts of preventive self-defence, citing Iran’s history of undeclared facilities, its missile programme, and enrichment levels approaching weapons-grade. Israeli officials argue that inaction risks letting Iran cross the nuclear military threshold under civilian cover. On the other hand, Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and its declared nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards.
These contrasting approaches highlight a deeper tension: Between the imperative to enforce non-proliferation and the need to uphold the legitimacy of international safeguards. Striking monitored sites may seem preventive, but it risks unravelling the present system designed to keep atomic energy peaceful. If internationally safeguarded nuclear sites are vulnerable to attack, will states have confidence in a multilateral non-proliferation regime that cannot guarantee protection against unilateral strikes?
This issue is not about taking sides between Israel and Iran. It’s about defending a principle that protects everyone: Nuclear infrastructure is not a battlefield. Radiation cannot be deterred. Once released, the fallout spreads without regard for borders, flags or causes.
Nuclear power today is not just about weapons. It’s a cornerstone of economic development and climate action. More than 30 countries operate civilian nuclear energy reactors, and many more are investing in nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel reliance and meet growing industrial needs. According to recent news reports, even the World Bank is shifting its long-held reluctance to finance nuclear projects as part of a broader strategy to meet skyrocketing energy demand in developing countries.
India thus has a major stake in this conversation. The collapse of protections around civilian nuclear infrastructure threatens not only the nuclear order but also our energy security and development goals. India has set an ambitious target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047, up from about 8 GW today. With rising industrial demand and a commitment to net-zero goals, nuclear power is central to India’s long-term energy strategy. Plans to amend the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, announced in the budget, are underway to encourage private investment and scale up deployment.
As India expands its nuclear fleet, the risk calculus changes if attacks on reactors are normalised. This is not a theoretical proposition. Even amid deep tensions, India and Pakistan have upheld a rare example of nuclear restraint. Since 1991, both have observed the Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack against Nuclear Installations and Facilities that was signed in December 1988, exchanging lists of sites annually and pledging not to strike them.
Years ago, as an Indian diplomat, I had exchanged such lists with a Pakistani counterpart on a New Year’s Day as part of an annual process. This confidence-building measure has endured and shows that even adversaries can respect a shared red line. India’s continued commitment to this Agreement even now underscores its record of responsible stewardship and strengthens its credibility in calling for global protections.
How far can existing legal protections stretch in the face of these new threats? Current legal instruments are fragmented and lack enforcement. What’s needed is a binding international convention that bans attacks on civilian nuclear facilities under all circumstances. Such a norm would promote restraint, protect lives and preserve prospects of global energy growth while also safeguarding the global nuclear framework.
In a world shaped by climate stress, digital expansion, and geopolitical volatility, nuclear power remains one of the few tools capable of delivering clean, reliable, large-scale energy. From powering AI-driven economies to electrifying rural regions, the demand for nuclear power is only growing.
But, if we allow attacks on nuclear installations to go unaddressed, every atomic plant becomes a potential future target and every regional conflict risks triggering a global crisis.
It’s time to reaffirm a simple, urgent principle: Nuclear infrastructure is not a target.
The writer is former permanent representative of India to the United Nations, and dean, Kautilya School of Public Policy, Hyderabad
