By Chalk White

A few months before the attack on Iran, I participated in a Think Tank meeting where the discussion turned to Iran’s nuclear programme and how the international community should approach the issue.

In response to a question on whether Iran should be encouraged to abandon its nuclear programme, I argued that Iran would be taking an enormous risk if it did so without concrete and credible international guarantees. I drew parallels with Iraq and Libya, where the abandonment of strategic capabilities did not ultimately protect those countries from devastating military intervention.

I predicted that, with or without Iran giving up its nuclear programme, the country could still face military action by the United States and its allies.

What I had not envisaged was the scale of the devastation that would follow, nor the possibility that Iran could face threats extending beyond its military capabilities to the very foundations of its state and civilisation. More significantly, despite their long-standing hostility towards each other, I had not anticipated the extent to which the United States and Israel would act together in unleashing such devastating force against Iran.

Iranian leaders, including its Supreme Leader, were killed within hours of the outbreak of the conflict. Civilians, children and critical infrastructure have also suffered enormously. Yet threats of further escalation from Washington continue to reverberate across multiple fronts.

To be clear, criticism of Iran’s government and its treatment of its own citizens is entirely legitimate. Iran has serious internal political and human-rights problems, and these should not be ignored. But those shortcomings cannot provide a justification for treating an entire population as expendable or for disregarding the fundamental principles of sovereignty and international law.

What has been equally striking is the reaction—or lack thereof—from much of the international community.

Several European countries and other US allies have expressed opposition to aspects of the military campaign and have declined to become directly involved. Yet across Africa, a continent that has itself experienced decades of foreign intervention and military destabilisation, the response has been remarkably muted.

I have seen little evidence of the kind of public demonstrations, parliamentary debates and political mobilisation that one might expect in African capitals in response to such a major international crisis.

Perhaps many African governments are reluctant to confront Washington because of their economic dependence on the dollar and Western financial institutions. But if that dependence has reached a point where countries are afraid to speak when fundamental principles are at stake, then we must ask ourselves what kind of sovereignty we truly possess.

Africa has paid a heavy price for external intervention. Somalia remains a modern example of the consequences of prolonged foreign involvement and instability. The continent should therefore understand better than most the dangers of normalising the use of military force to resolve political disputes.

But perhaps what has disturbed me most is the apparent feebleness of the United Nations.

The United Nations is supposed to be the principal global institution for maintaining international peace and security. Yet its ability to prevent or even meaningfully restrain powerful states appears increasingly limited.

We have witnessed extensive international attention over the war in Ukraine and the catastrophic situation in Gaza. Yet when the bombs began falling on Iran, the international response appeared comparatively subdued.

This raises a fundamental question: Does the international system still operate according to rules, or increasingly according to power?

The answer should concern every country, particularly smaller and developing states.

The attacks on Iran have, in my view, further exposed the fragility of the international order as we have known it. The much-proclaimed “rules-based international order” appears to have been thrown through the window.

And there seems to be remarkably little evidence that the lessons of the past have informed the present: Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan.

There appears to be no end in sight to the war in Ukraine. Lebanon continues to experience instability not unrelated to the indiscriminate bombing by the Isreal Defense Forces (IDF). Palestine continues to suffer under the weight of Israeli military and political dominance.

Taiwan remains one of the world’s most dangerous potential flashpoints as tensions between China and the United States persist.

In Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro has been removed from power and is facing imprisonment in the United States. Washington has also intensified its pressure on Cuba.

Taken together, these developments paint a deeply unsettling picture of a world in which the boundaries of sovereignty, intervention and military power appear increasingly uncertain.

And this brings us to the uncomfortable question that the international community must confront:

If it is Venezuela and Iran today, which country—or which leader—is next?

That is not merely a question for governments in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, Tehran or Brussels. It is a question for every country, especially those of us in Africa.

The international system cannot survive indefinitely if the powerful are permitted to determine when international law applies and when it does not.

The United Nations cannot remain merely a forum where nations make speeches after wars have begun. It must find ways to prevent conflicts, enforce international norms and provide credible guarantees to states that may otherwise conclude that only military power can protect their sovereignty.

The world needs diplomacy more than ever. It needs credible international guarantees, genuine dialogue and institutions capable of restraining power rather than simply documenting its consequences.

The September United Nations General Assembly will therefore be watched closely.

The world cannot afford another cycle in which military action becomes the first option, diplomacy the second, and accountability an afterthought.

We are living through an increasingly dangerous period in international relations. The foundations of the global order are being tested from several directions simultaneously.

The world is, without doubt, on shaky ground.

And unless something is done urgently to restore confidence in international institutions, respect for sovereignty and the credibility of international law, we risk tipping further into the abyss.

Copyright –Published in Expo Times News on Monday, 31st August 2026 (ExpoTimes News – Expo Media Group (expomediasl.com)