Africa’s relations with Iran and Israel have never been exceptionally close and the continent’s blanket position on the latest flare-up between these two fiercest of rivals in the Middle East seems to be indicative of this.
On Friday June 13 the world woke up to the aftermath of a blistering attack by Israeli warplanes targeting military and other facilities linked to Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons programme which the Islamic Republic has denied.
Iran had responded with full-handed retaliation and since then the conflict has settled down to an escalatory pattern of deadly payloads from Israeli fighter jets and fiery missile launches towards cities in Israel with devastating consequences.
The united States and her major European allies are hedging their bets on Israel while Russia, China and other regional rivals have condemned the attacks on Iran even if this stops short of lending practical backing to Tehran.
This leaves a huge question mark hanging over Africa’s position. Is the continent oscillating toward non-alignment or taking an unmistakable stance backing either Iran or Israel?
The answer may not be hard to find in the manner of their reaction since all hell broke loose between two of the Middle East’s strongest militaries.
From timid calls for peace to diplomatic no-shows, the African Union, which generally should reflect the collective position of its members made it clear that it favours a peaceful resolution.
Its members have reacted as global spectators while the rest of the world took sides in the raging conflict which has so far showed no signs of abating.
Even South Africa who had used forceful rhetoric to condemn Israel’s bloody military campaign against Hamas in Gaza since 2023 and championed a genocide-shaming case at the International Court of Justice has been more circumspect regarding this latest conflagration in the Middle East.
This is especially remarkable in the wake of the United States joining the fray on the side of Israel by bombing nuclear enrichment sites around Iran last weekend.
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his government in a watered down rhetoric reflecting a slight but significant foreign policy shift, expressed ‘a great deal of anxiety’ over the expansion of the conflict and expressed hope that the principals especially US President Donald Trump would use their influence to prevail on Tehran and Tel Aviv to pursue a resolution of the crisis through dialogue.
Since the outbreak of the conflict, this rhetoric of non-alignment has been echoing throughout the continent where relations with both belligerent nations have been for decades alternating between warm ties to a form of diplomacy totally lacking in conviction toward each other. The crisis coincides with a new but half-hearted diplomatic push by both Israel and Iran to rehabilitate slack relations and solidify their footprints on the continent. However, like all planted seeds of diplomacy, their fruition will take time to begin to show signs of a true renaissance which would rally African nations to their separate causes.
These half-hearted calls by African countries such as The Gambia, Senegal and Ghana for a ceasefire have so far gone unheeded as Tehran and Tel Aviv bore the brunt of the fury of the latest showdown between two old regional rivals.
Amid the grim spectre of death, destruction and chaotic diplomatic responses what followed was a flurry of full-throated condemnation from some parts of the world especially Muslim nations in the Middle East under the wing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab nations in North Africa.
Understandably, North African nations led by Egypt with their geopolitical interests tied to events in the Middle East have been voicing unreserved opposition to Israel as the main aggressor and strong criticism of Western countries for turning a blind eye to this ‘naked act of aggression’ against a Muslim=majority country.
No foreign policy daylight on Africa
Weak and limited are the words roundly used to describe Israel’s relations with Africa which had been better in the mid 1970s. Since such relations entered a lukewarm phase, they have not fully recovered although it still maintains a semblance of diplomatic relations with some 40 countries across Africa. Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Togo and Rwanda regarded as somewhat warm by Tel Aviv.
Known for backing Israel, these nations have been conspicuous in their silence since the crisis began and are likely to join the weak chorus of voices around the continent ruing the carnage on both sides and calling for an end to hostilities with Iran.
Ghana, Senegal and Nigeria who without taking sides have been couching their diplomatic language with tacit calls for a return to the negotiating table. Last month an impromptu protest against the presence of the Israeli ambassador was staged at a university campus in Dakar. Its footage gained huge traction on social media, but this was before the outbreak of the Iran-Israel conflict and did not necessarily reflect official Senegalese government policy on Israel.
In recent years Iran under late President Ebrahim Raisi has been demonstrating more than passing interest in Africa, but following his tragic death in a helicopter crash last year, Tehran’s inroad into the continent has stuttered to a halt thanks in large part to the absence of diplomatic blueprint by which to approach the continent of 54 nations with disparate geopolitical agendas.
Tehran’s relations with West African regional giant Nigeria and uranium-rich neighbour Niger constitute nothing to write home about other than efforts to export the Shiism strand of Islam to the former and secure mineral exploratory deals with the latter.
The emerging economic giants China, Russia, India and to some extent Turkey have been the main challengers to the West’s hegemonic presence in Africa and this unfolding scramble for spoils on the ‘continent of opportunities’ may witness the inclusion of new powers from outside.
However, Tel Aviv and Tehran will continue to trail these economic powers for clout in this second scramble for Africa.
Perhaps African countries have realised that they have very little to gain by openly siding with one belligerent against the other, hence their near-uniformly studied approach towards a conflict which is yet to affect world trade in ways that would impact negatively on economies on the continent.
While Israel’s image has received something of a battering in Africa especially with Muslims who may rally temporarily behind Iran, there is no indication yet that the majority of countries on the continent would go beyond issuing mild rhetoric urging diplomacy and dialogue to bring the Middle East’s most implacable of enemies and their inveterate hostility back from the brink of an existential struggle.
WN/as/APA