Bold statement: The world’s poorer, often sidelined nations view the US-Israeli confrontation with Iran as an illegal overreach that flags a troubling pattern of imperial behavior. And this is where the controversy really deepens: many countries argue that negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were cut off too hastily before any deal could prove viable, as Washington and Tel Aviv proceeded to bomb. Experts frequently describe the conflict as a colonial-style exercise of power, highlighting unequal leverage between the world’s superpowers and smaller, developing states.
Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, offered condolences on the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisting that international law forbids targeting heads of state. South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, questioned the so-called pre-emptive justification for the war, noting that self-defence is permitted only in response to an armed invasion and that political problems require political rather than military solutions.
Brazil expressed grave concerns, stressing that the attacks happened amid ongoing negotiations, which it views as the only viable route to peace. Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, condemned the strikes, saying they were instigated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who had hinted a deal was within reach, pleaded with the US to resist getting drawn deeper in what he called not their fight. Oman later reported drone incidents near its territory, including a drone downed and another crashing near Salalah port.
Cuba, facing significant pressure from the United States, asserted that once again Washington and Tel Aviv threaten regional and international peace, stability, and security. Malaysia joined in, condemning the attack and urging disputes be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy.
Indonesia—one of the few nations pledging troops for a proposed international security force for Gaza—expressed deep regret that Iran’s negotiations failed, with its president offering to travel to Tehran to restart dialogue. The Indonesian Ulema Council urged Jakarta to withdraw from the peace initiative in protest.
Many other developing countries criticized Iran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbors, arguing for a broader perspective on regional security. Analysts frame the conflict against a backdrop of past regime-change wars in Iraq and Libya, Israel’s long-standing impunity regarding Gaza since 2023, and lingering colonial dynamics. They also point to recent remarks by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that seemed to celebrate past Western conquests of poorer nations as evidence of imperial motives.
Siphamandla Zondi, a politics professor at the University of Johannesburg, contrasts Western portrayals of war as morally justified with a global south perspective that sees conflict as inherently evil and a failure of responsible leadership. He notes that the Abraham Accords have leveraged diplomatic recognition for Israel while allowing force against others, describing this as a war of domination with imperialist undertones that makes the world less safe for everyone.
Some observers accuse Europe of double standards: staunchly defending international law in the Greenland context, yet appearing muted in reaction to this broader conflict. Amitav Acharya, author of The Once and Future Global Order, argues that the US once sought legitimacy through influence but now relies more on coercion, while China’s growing soft power offers developing countries an alternative path. He also suggests Russia could gain from the distraction Iran and related shocks create away from Ukraine.
Acharya further notes that many countries in the global south may seek coalitions that resist American aggression, given the perception of the United States as increasingly imperial. Critics also stress that criticizing the war does not equate to supporting Iran’s theocratic regime. Former Chilean foreign minister Heraldo Muñoz condemned Iran’s repressive regime while condemning the attacks as international law violations, suggesting the motives may be domestic, rooted in US leadership’s confidence after successful moves in Venezuela.
Analysts also point to a pattern: the Trump administration often bypassed UN Security Council authorization and domestic congressional approval for major actions, mirroring a broader concern that international norms are eroding. Latin American scholars fear that if the US continues to act unilaterally, Cuba and other militarily weaker nations with valuable resources could be at greater risk. They warn that such a shift could unsettle international law and norms that many developing countries rely on for protection in a volatile geopolitical landscape.
Overall, many critics emphasize that opposing the war does not imply endorsement of Iran’s regime. The core argument is a demand for lawful, negotiated pathways to peace rather than unilateral military action, paired with a call for equal treatment of all nations under international law. Do you think this argument against unilateral action is persuasive, or do you side with the view that sharp measures are sometimes necessary for security? Share your thoughts in the comments.
