When warplanes entered Tehran’s airspace on the morning of Friday, 13 June 2025, and sirens pierced the dawn, it was not only the Iranian sky that darkened. The very idea of global governance dimmed with it. The confrontation between Israel and Iran is not a localised military skirmish; it is a deeply entangled geopolitical rupture with far-reaching consequences for civilian life, international law, and the moral legitimacy of global leadership. 

This conflict did not erupt in a vacuum. On 1 April 2024, Israeli fighter jets bombed the Iranian consular compound in Damascus, Syria, killing seven senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This was not a battlefield. It was a diplomatic mission, which under international law enjoys inviolability. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) guarantees that diplomatic premises are protected from intrusion and attack, and are to be respected by the host state and third parties. Iran promptly informed the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) through a formal letter dated 1 April 2024, titled S/2024/281, detailing the incident and asserting its right to respond. 

The response was not immediate, but when it came on 13 June 2025, it was measured and strategically focused. Iranian officials insisted that their strikes targeted Israeli military infrastructure, although civilian casualties were still reported. In the days since, Israel’s retaliatory campaign has intensified. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the assassination of another senior Iranian general. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump left the Group of Seven (G7) summit early on 16 June 2025 and warned, “The United States (U.S.) knows exactly where [Iran’s Supreme Leader] is. He is an easy target. But he is safe, for now.” These are not the words of a statesman committed to de-escalation. They are reckless provocations that jeopardise diplomacy and embolden military aggression. 

The consequences of this confrontation are cascading across borders. In Gaza, dozens of Palestinians were killed while queuing for humanitarian aid. In the West Bank, while Israeli settlements are equipped with air raid sirens and bomb shelters, many Palestinian communities remain entirely exposed. Over the past few days alone, nearly 80 fragments of war debris have fallen in these areas, according to reports. These communities are not actors in the Iran-Israel conflict, yet they are absorbing its fallout. This is how elite statecraft spills into the lives of civilians far removed from the centres of power. 

What makes this moment most dangerous is not only the violence itself but the legal and moral vacuum surrounding it. The U.S. has signalled its willingness to escalate. Meanwhile, China has accused Washington of “fanning the flames” by supporting Israeli operations and threatening Iran’s leadership. At the same time, the International Criminal Court (ICC), long considered the court of last resort for humanity, has remained silent. This is not a failure of procedure but a collapse of principle. Nevertheless, it appears that international norms are no longer governed by law but by alliances. 

The legal frameworks are not ambiguous. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The only exception is in Article 51, which permits self-defence in the event of an armed attack. Iran invoked this right in a separate letter to the UNSC following the targeted killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on 31 July 2024. It warned it would “respond decisively and promptly.” The Geneva Conventions require parties in conflict to protect civilian populations, and the Rome Statute of the ICC defines indiscriminate attacks against civilians as war crimes. Even so, these international instruments are being disregarded in real time, and the global response has been disturbingly selective. 

But Africa cannot remain a spectator. Our continent bears its own scars of foreign occupation, Cold War manipulations, and embargoes imposed in the name of peace. We are part of the “Global South,” which has long demanded an international system that treats all states and civilians with equal moral worth. Therefore, if we do not speak out now, we risk erasing the moral clarity inherited from past struggles.  Namibia, like many African nations, has no direct stake in Iran’s nuclear programme or Israel’s security calculations. However, we do have a stake in global justice, particularly when innocent lives, Palestinian, Israeli, American, or Iranian, are extinguished in a cycle of unaccountable violence. Namibia’s President, Dr Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, rightly described the Israeli strike as “a flagrant violation of Iran’s sovereignty” and warned of its “debilitating consequences” for global peace and energy security. Namibia has spoken; now it is time for the African Union (AU) to step forward and take decisive action. The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) has the authority to convene emergency sessions, issue binding communiqués, and deploy high-level mediation panels. If the UN fails to act, regional institutions must step into the breach and reaffirm basic humanitarian values. This is not only critical for safeguarding peace and stability on the African continent but also essential for upholding a rules-based international order that protects vulnerable populations worldwide. The AU’s leadership can help set a precedent for principled, decisive responses to conflicts that threaten global security and human dignity. 

If this confrontation continues, what awaits us? 

First, the humanitarian toll will rise exponentially. The primary victims are not military leaders but ordinary civilians in Tehran, Gaza, and Tel Aviv. Second, the economic consequences are already being felt. According to Investopedia, U.S. crude oil prices surged nearly 8% on Friday, 13 June 2025, climbing to approximately $75 per barrel. For many nations in the “Global South,” heavily dependent on fuel imports, this spike will drive inflation, deepen poverty, and choke already strained economies. Third, the erosion of legal norms may encourage other powerful states to pursue unilateral aggression, knowing that enforcement mechanisms are weak or nonexistent. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and Turkey’s repeated incursions into northern Syria all underscore how the selective application of international law breeds a culture of impunity. 

Equally devastating are the psychological consequences. Young people across the Middle East and Africa are watching, learning that international law is not a shield but a privilege. They see that justice depends less on principles than on geopolitical alignment. In 2011, youth-led uprisings from Tunisia to Egypt were fuelled by political exclusion and the failure of global institutions to respond to state violence. That same frustration may rise again. When they see hospitals bombed, humanitarian agencies blocked, and global leaders excusing the inexcusable, the ground becomes fertile for radicalisation and despair. This is not simply a foreign policy issue; it is a generational crisis in trust and legitimacy. 

Let there be no confusion: Iran’s record is deeply troubling. It suppresses dissent and destabilises the region through its proxy networks in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. But acknowledging this cannot excuse Israel’s repeated violations of international law, its siege warfare in Gaza, or its willingness to strike diplomatic missions. If the defence of civilian life is to mean anything at all, it must be consistent. We cannot claim to protect civilians while simultaneously enabling the conditions that destroy them, starve them, or bury their stories beneath rubble. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently warned that any Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities amid ongoing negotiations with the U.S. could trigger a catastrophe “the region can hardly afford.” He urged both parties to “exercise maximum restraint” and “uphold international law.” The UNSC has debated these issues before, including during its 19 December 2019 meeting (S/PV.8695) on the implementation of Resolution 2231, which endorsed the Iran nuclear agreement. Yet such debates, time and again, have failed to produce credible deterrents or enforce accountability. 

This moment demands more than cautious diplomacy. It requires moral courage. We must condemn unlawful violence, no matter who perpetrates it. We must defend international law not selectively, but universally. And we must protect human life not just when it reflects our image, but especially when it does not. Otherwise, we are not building a better international order. We are bearing witness to its collapse. 

*Gerson Ingashipola Shikukumwa is a Canon Collins Scholar currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Political Science at the University of the Free State, South Africa. He holds an Honours degree in Public Management from the University of Namibia. The views expressed are his own.