‘Imperialist undertones’: global south condemns US-Israeli war with Iran

China calls it unacceptable to ‘kill leader of sovereign state’, while South Africa questions ‘pre-emptive’ justification

The US-Israeli war on Iran has been condemned as illegal across much of the global south, with China saying it was unacceptable to “blatantly kill the leader of a sovereign state”.

Many countries objected that negotiations between the US and Iran over its nuclear programme and missile capability were not given a chance to succeed before Washington and Israel began bombing, and analysts often saw the war in terms of a colonial-style exercise of might.

Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, offered condolences over the killing of the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that international law prohibited the targeting of heads of state. South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, questioned the “pre-emptive” justification provided for the war, saying that self-defence was only permitted in response to an armed invasion and that “there can be no military solution to fundamentally political problems”.

Brazil said that it had grave concerns, adding that “the attacks occurred amid a negotiation process between the parties, which is the only viable path to peace”.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, deplored the attacks, which he said were “instigated” by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who had said on the eve of the attack that a deal was within reach, said: “I urge the US not to get sucked in further. This is not your war.” Oman downed two drones, while another crashed near its Salalah port on Tuesday, state media said.

Cuba, whose regime is under substantial pressure from Donald Trump, said: “Once again, the US and Israel threaten and seriously endanger regional and international peace, stability, and security.” Malaysia, condemning the attack, said that “disputes must be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy”.

Indonesia, one of the few countries to announce troops for Trump’s Board of Peace’s planned international security force for Gaza, said it “deeply regrets” the failure of the Iran negotiations – while its president offered to travel to Tehran to reopen dialogue. The Indonesian Ulema Council, an organisation of the country’s Muslim clerics, urged their government to withdraw from the Board of Peace in protest.

Many other developing nations also lambasted Iran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours.

Analysts said the conflict should be understood in the context of past wars of regime change in Iraq and Libya, Israel’s impunity for its war in Gaza since 2023, and colonialism – pointing to a speech of US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, last month, where he appeared to glorify past western conquests of developing nations.

Siphamandla Zondi, professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg, said that in the west, wars were viewed as having moral purpose, while in the global south, conflict was seen as evil and a failure to behave as adults. He said that the US and Israel had cajoled some countries through the Abraham Accords for diplomatic recognition of Israel, and used force against others.

“This is a war of domination and subordination, therefore it has imperialist undertones and motives,” said Zondi. “It makes the world unsafe for all of us.”

Commentators said Europe had shown double standards, stridently defending international law when it came to Trump’s attempts to annex Greenland but muted in the case of this war.

Amitav Acharya, author of The Once and Future Global Order, said that in the past, the US had sought influence and legitimacy. Now, the US acted solely through coercion, even as Chinese soft power was gaining, with Beijing offering investment to developing countries. He said that Russia, too, would benefit, as Iran and other Trump foreign policy shocks took the focus away from Ukraine.

“Many countries in the global south are going to look for a coalition of powers that will stand up to the United States, as the United States is seen as so aggressive, so imperial,” said Acharya.

Some commentators emphasised that criticism of the war did not mean support of the Iranian regime.

“I condemn the Iranian theocratic regime for its dictatorial and repressive nature, but these ongoing attacks are a violation of international law,” said Heraldo Muñoz, a former foreign minister of Chile. “The motives are more of a domestic nature in the US by an American president who feels empowered by the successful military extraction of Maduro from Venezuela.”

The Trump administration sought neither the approval of the UN security council – as Washington attempted for the Iraq war in 2003 – – nor even the approval of elected representatives at home, analysts said.

Oliver Stuenkel, professor of International Relations at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) in São Paulo, said that there was fear in Latin America that, emboldened by his actions in Venezuela and Iran, Trump would attempt to target Cuba.

“There is a profound sense that international law is being eroded more systematically, and that has, I think, profound consequences for many countries in the global south, which are militarily weak and vulnerable, have rich natural resources, and have long made a bet on international rules and norms,” said Stuenkel.

Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, said the US was negotiating with Iran in bad faith, as it did last year, using talks as a smokescreen to complete preparations to attack.

“Who can trust the Trump administration now? It acts unilaterally in total defiance of international law and any norms of diplomacy,” said Lodhi. “This will come back to haunt them.”