The deeper geopolitical implications of Israel’s strikes on Iran

A dangerous doctrine was born when Israeli warplanes struck targets deep inside Iranian territory last Friday, it did more than ignite regional tensions – it reawakened a dangerous doctrine: that a state may act unilaterally to eliminate a perceived future threat, regardless of sovereignty, international law, or global consequence. This is not the first time history has witnessed such logic. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in a surprise strike widely condemned at the United Nations, though praised domestically as a preemptive defence. The United States adopted similar reasoning in its 2003 invasion of Iraq, citing the need to prevent weapons of mass destruction that were never found. The devastation of that war continues to echo through a region fractured by intervention and instability.

Its timing, scale, and intent make the recent Israeli action unprecedented. Unlike previous targeted assassinations or sabotage campaigns often denied by Tel Aviv, this was a visible, state-declared military action. It was not surgical, nor silent. It was a message to the international system: preemption is no longer an exception – it is now a strategic norm.

This shift in doctrine is perilous. When the world’s diplomatic mechanisms are bypassed, when force substitutes for dialogue, and when might supersedes rights, the consequences extend far beyond the Middle East. It creates a dangerous template for others to emulate.

SPONSOR AD

The region: On the edge of the unknown

By striking Iranian soil directly, Israel has expanded the scope of open conflict. What was once a shadow war waged through proxies has now become a head-on state-to-state confrontation. Iran’s vows of “severe retaliation” are not rhetorical; they echo with the weight of a country that has endured decades of encirclement, sanctions, and isolation. Iran’s alliances – Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Iraqi and Syrian militias – now risk becoming fully activated in a coordinated regional pushback. This raises the specter of a multi-front conflict spanning land, sea, and cyber domains.

The precedent here is ominous: in 2006, a single Hezbollah raid on Israeli forces evolved into a month-long war. Today, the same actors are more entrenched, better armed, and backed by more robust regional alignments. This is happening while the war in Gaza rages on with no resolution in sight. Tensions in the West Bank remain volatile. Syria’s internal conflict simmers unresolved. Lebanon teeters on economic collapse. The convergence of these tensions – political, military, and sectarian – presents a high risk of general regional war. The region, long termed the “powder keg of the world,” now stands perilously close to ignition.

The collapse of global restraint 

The 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, ostensibly for humanitarian protection, ended with the destruction of the Libyan state, the spread of arms across North and West Africa, and the rise of new extremist factions. These cascading consequences are still playing out across the Sahel, destabilising nations like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger.

Israel’s strike on Iran may now normalise such unilateralism for other actors. What stops India from invoking “preemptive defence” in Kashmir? Or Ethiopia from acting against perceived threats in Somalia? Or regional rivals in Central Africa from citing threats to justify cross-border strikes?

What we are witnessing is not merely military escalation – it is the slow erosion of post-World War II international norms. The doctrine of collective security, enshrined in the UN Charter, is under siege. Multilateral diplomacy, already weakened by global polarisation, risks being replaced by a survival-of-the-fittest paradigm. The long-term cost is institutional: erosion of the authority of the United Nations, the paralysis of regional blocs like the Arab League and the African Union, and the normalisation of violence as a means of policy.

Strategic silence from superpowers

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this episode has been the silence of global powers. The United States, Israel’s closest ally, has officially denied prior knowledge but stopped short of condemning the action. European nations have issued cautious calls for de-escalation but avoided direct criticism. The UN Security Council met, but no resolution emerged. This strategic silence is dangerous. It sends a message that the rules of engagement are suspended for certain states. It affirms the perception – long held in the Global South – that international law is applied selectively, that some violators are punished, and others protected.

Into this void step Russia and China. While neither is a natural ally of Iran, both have strategic reasons to support a counterbalance to Western dominance. Already, Iran is accelerating its participation in BRICS+ discussions and deepening military cooperation with Moscow and Beijing. This is the new global fault line – not merely between democracies and autocracies, but between those who benefit from the current order and those who seek to rewrite it. Israel’s action has widened that fault line.

Oil, markets, and the fragile global economy

The immediate economic consequences are already unfolding. Oil prices have spiked, insurance premiums on cargo through the Strait of Hormuz have surged, and airlines are rerouting flights away from Iranian airspace. For fragile economies – especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America – this adds pressure on inflation, currency stability, and energy access. Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, may benefit marginally from higher prices, but the cost of fuel subsidies and transportation will also rise.

Import-dependent economies like Kenya and Senegal will feel the pinch almost immediately. This economic stress compounds an already difficult environment: post-COVID recovery is incomplete, debt levels are high, and climate shocks continue to affect agricultural output. A sustained Middle East crisis could push several low-income nations into fiscal distress. It also raises deeper questions about the fragility of the global economic system – how quickly one event in one corner of the world can ripple across food markets, financial systems, and social stability.

Africa’s voice is missing — But it matters

Africa’s response to the Israel-Iran escalation has been muted. This silence is not new. Historically, African states have adopted a cautious approach to Middle East politics, given their economic dependencies and internal divisions. But today’s crisis requires more than caution. It demands a principled stance. Africa cannot afford to remain a spectator while the norms that protect small and medium states are being dismantled. If powerful countries can strike at will, what guarantees sovereignty for weaker ones? Nigeria, with its size, diplomatic weight, and seat on the UN Security Council (when applicable), has a duty to articulate Africa’s concern.

The African Union must reassert its Peace and Security Council not only for continental crises but also for global developments that threaten the continent’s stability. Africa’s silence in past crises – Rwanda, Darfur, Libya – has cost it moral authority. A proactive voice now can restore some of that credibility and assert Africa’s role in shaping a multipolar world.

Will history repeat, or be rewritten?

This is not just a regional flare-up. It is a moment of reckoning for the international community. The choice is stark: uphold a system of law and diplomacy or descend into a world of preemptive strikes and permanent insecurity. If Israel’s action is allowed to set a precedent, other nations will follow suit, and the world will become a more unstable, dangerous place. If Iran responds without restraint, the risk of broader war becomes real. And if Africa continues to remain on the sidelines, it will be left to endure the consequences without shaping the outcomes. But history is not yet written. It is shaped by those who speak, act, and lead when silence prevails.

This is Africa’s moment to rise – to speak not just for itself, but for the global principle that peace must be built on law, not unilateral force. Let our voice be strong, principled, and clear. Because in this moment, silence is no longer an option.

Chafe is with Arewa Research and Development Project (ARDP) Kaduna