A global outcry has erupted over the US-Israeli war on Iran, with nations in the global south denouncing it as an illegal and unjustified act. The killing of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has sparked widespread condemnation, with China leading the charge, declaring such an act unacceptable and a blatant violation of international law.
Many countries, including Pakistan, South Africa, and Brazil, have voiced their objections to the war, questioning the justification provided by the US and Israel. They argue that negotiations should have been given a chance to succeed before resorting to military action, and that the war smacks of a colonial-style power play.
Pakistan's Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, offered condolences for the loss of Ayatollah Khamenei, emphasizing that international law prohibits targeting heads of state. South Africa's President, Cyril Ramaphosa, challenged the pre-emptive reasoning, stating that self-defense is only valid in response to an armed invasion and that political problems require political solutions, not military might.
Brazil expressed grave concerns, highlighting that the attacks occurred during an ongoing negotiation process, which is the only viable path to peace. Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, blamed the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for instigating the attacks, while Oman's Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, urged the US not to get further entangled in a war that is not theirs.
Even countries like Cuba and Malaysia, facing pressure from the Trump administration, condemned the attacks, emphasizing the need for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve disputes. Indonesia, despite its initial support for Trump's Board of Peace, now regrets the failure of the Iran negotiations and has offered to reopen dialogue with Tehran.
Analysts draw parallels to past wars of regime change in Iraq and Libya, highlighting Israel's impunity for its war in Gaza and the underlying colonialist motives. Professor Siphamandla Zondi from the University of Johannesburg argues that the West views wars through a moral lens, while the global south sees conflict as evil and a failure of adult behavior. He believes this war is about domination and subordination, with imperialist undertones.
Commentators point out Europe's double standards, with a strong defense of international law in the case of Greenland but a muted response to this war. Amitav Acharya, author of The Once and Future Global Order, suggests that the US now relies solely on coercion, contrasting it with China's growing soft power and investment in developing nations. He predicts that many countries in the global south will seek a coalition to counter the perceived aggression and imperialism of the US.
Some commentators clarify that criticism of the war does not equate to support for the Iranian regime. Heraldo Muñoz, a former Chilean foreign minister, condemns the Iranian theocratic regime for its repressive nature but also denounces the ongoing attacks as a violation of international law, driven by domestic motives in the US.
The Trump administration's actions have raised concerns about its credibility and respect for international law. Analysts note that Washington sought neither UN Security Council approval nor the consent of elected representatives at home. Professor Oliver Stuenkel from Fundação Getulio Vargas in São Paulo expresses fear that Trump's emboldened actions in Venezuela and Iran could lead to targeting Cuba next.
Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's former ambassador to the US, accuses the Trump administration of negotiating in bad faith, using talks as a cover for attack preparations. She warns that the US's unilateral actions in defiance of international law and diplomatic norms will have consequences.
