The escalating tensions and open hostilities between Iran and Israel present African nations with a profound geopolitical, economic, and ethical dilemma. The expectation or pressure to “choose sides” in a conflict rooted in deep historical animosities, regional power struggles, and intersecting global alliances runs counter to Africa’s diverse interests, complex realities, and long-standing principles. Analyzing the potential roles African states might adopt requires a nuanced examination of economic imperatives, political and ideological alignments, and the intricate role of religion, all while prioritizing continental stability and development.
The Weight of Economic Realities
The economic calculus for African nations is inherently asymmetric and fraught with risk, heavily favoring caution over alignment.
The Israeli Connection: Israel maintains significantly deeper and more diversified economic ties across Africa compared to Iran. This includes substantial trade in agriculture (technology, irrigation systems), technology (cybersecurity, fintech), defense equipment, water management, and diamond trading. Israeli investments, particularly in tech start-ups and agribusiness, are visible in several countries. Choosing a stance perceived as hostile to Israel risks tangible, immediate economic repercussions: disrupted trade flows, loss of vital technology transfers crucial for food security, potential withdrawal of investments, and strained relations with Western partners who are major aid donors and trading blocs. The economic cost of alienating Israel is high and quantifiable for many economies.
The Iranian Equation: Iran’s economic footprint in Africa is considerably smaller and more constrained, largely due to decades of international sanctions. Trade volumes are lower, focusing on commodities like petrochemicals (where feasible under sanctions), construction materials, and some agricultural products. Iranian engagement often involves ideological solidarity or religious outreach, translating into limited development projects, scholarships, or religious institution support. While choosing a stance hostile to Iran carries less immediate * broad economic risk than alienating Israel, it could disrupt specific bilateral arrangements, affect energy imports for a few nations, and potentially invite retaliatory actions through proxies or diplomatic channels. The potential cost here is less about widespread economic shock and more about targeted vulnerabilities and lost niche opportunities.
The Sanctions Shadow: Aligning overtly with Iran, particularly if perceived as materially supporting its war effort, risks triggering secondary sanctions from the US and its allies. This could devastate a nation’s access to the global financial system (SWIFT), impede crucial imports (including food and medicine), cripple foreign investment, and isolate it internationally. The specter of sanctions is perhaps the single most potent economic deterrent against African alignment with Iran. Conversely, while aligning with Israel avoids this specific sanction risk, it doesn’t automatically confer significant new economic benefits beyond existing relations.
The Imperative of Diversification: This asymmetry underscores a fundamental African reality: deep economic dependence on external powers creates vulnerability. The conflict highlights the urgent need to accelerate intra-African trade (AfCFTA), reduce reliance on single partners or blocs, and build resilient, diversified economies less susceptible to external geopolitical shocks. Economic pragmatism, therefore, strongly leans towards neutrality and maintaining functional relations with all parties to preserve existing gains and avoid self-inflicted wounds.
Political and Ideological Labyrinths
Africa’s political landscape regarding the Middle East is a tapestry woven from historical threads, contemporary interests, and diverse governance models.
The Non-Aligned Legacy & Strategic Autonomy. The spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), though diminished, still resonates. Many African states cherish the principle of independent foreign policy, resisting pressure to become pawns in conflicts driven by external powers. Asserting neutrality is a statement of sovereignty and a practical strategy to avoid entanglement in a conflict perceived as distant from core African security and development priorities. The African Union (AU) framework, while often challenged by member state divisions, provides a platform for advocating continental unity and a collective call for de-escalation and peaceful resolution.
Bilateral Relationships & Pragmatic Interests: Individual African nations maintain diverse bilateral ties based on specific national interests. Some have close security cooperation with Israel (e.g., counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing). Others maintain longstanding diplomatic relations with Iran, sometimes rooted in historical anti-colonial solidarity or shared positions on issues like Palestinian statehood. Domestic political calculations also play a role – leaders may seek to balance internal factions or leverage the conflict for diplomatic gain. There is no monolithic “African position,” but rather a constellation of national interests that generally converge on avoiding direct entanglement.
The Palestinian Question: This remains a potent symbolic and moral issue across much of Africa, a legacy of the anti-apartheid struggle and broader anti-colonial sentiment. While distinct from the Iran-Israel conflict, it is deeply intertwined in regional dynamics. Support for Palestinian self-determination is widespread, often expressed through votes at the UN. However, translating this sympathy into active alignment with Iran against Israel is a significant and risky leap that most states are unwilling to make, recognizing the complexity and the potential cost to vital Israeli relations. The dominant political stance is likely principled support for Palestinian rights combined with calls for a two-state solution, distinct from endorsing Iran’s actions or strategy.
Global Power Dynamics: African nations are acutely aware of operating in a multipolar world. While maintaining crucial ties with the West (and thus being sensitive to US/EU positions favoring Israel), many also seek partnerships with emerging powers and value engagement with the Global South. Overtly siding with Israel could strain relations with Iran’s allies (like Russia or China) in some contexts, while siding with Iran would severely damage relations with the West. Navigating this requires careful diplomatic balancing, further incentivizing a non-aligned, mediating, or strictly neutral posture focused on conflict resolution.
Religion: A Complex Layer, Not a Determinant
Religion adds a profound layer of complexity but rarely dictates state policy in a straightforward way.
Muslim-Majority States: Nations with significant or majority Muslim populations (North Africa, Sahel, Horn, East and West Africa) have populations with strong religious and cultural ties to the broader Muslim world. Iran actively frames the conflict in religious terms (Shia resistance, defending Muslim sanctities). This resonates with many Muslims, creating domestic pressure on governments to demonstrate solidarity. However, several crucial factors moderate this:
Sunni-Shia Divide: Iran’s Shia theocracy is viewed with suspicion or outright hostility by many Sunni-majority states and populations, limiting the depth of religious solidarity. Gulf Arab states (like Saudi Arabia or UAE), which have significant influence and investment in Africa, are often rivals of Iran, further complicating the picture.
Secular Governance: Most African Muslim-majority states are constitutionally secular or have strong secular traditions in foreign policy. National interests, security concerns, and economic realities typically supersede purely religious solidarity when formulating state policy. Governments prioritize stability and managing domestic sectarian harmony over external religious alliances.
Diversity Within: Even within Muslim-majority nations, populations are diverse in their political views and levels of religiosity. Governments must consider broader national cohesion.
Christian-Majority and Religiously Mixed States: In countries with significant Christian populations or more balanced religious demographics, sympathy might lean towards Israel for historical, biblical, or shared democratic values (perceived or real). However, this rarely translates into official policy demanding alignment. Governments prioritize national unity and avoid actions that could inflame religious tensions domestically. The dominant stance remains focused on peace and stability.
Religion as a Tool: Both Iran and Israel utilize religious narratives and networks to cultivate soft power and influence within African societies. Iran supports Shia religious and cultural institutions. Israel engages Jewish communities and builds interfaith dialogue. However, state-level foreign policy decisions remain driven by strategic calculations rather than solely by these religious outreach efforts. The primary religious concern for most African governments is managing the domestic impact of the conflict to prevent polarization or radicalization within their own borders.
Towards an African Stance: Principles over Sides
Given this intricate web of factors, the most viable and principled role for African nations is not to choose sides between Iran and Israel, but to actively champion their own interests and global principles:
Articulate Neutrality & Independence: Clearly communicate a position of non-alignment based on the conflict’s distance from core African security interests and the principle of sovereign foreign policy decision-making. Reject external pressure to enlist in proxy conflicts.
Prioritize Peace & Diplomacy: Leverage regional bodies (AU) and international forums (UN) to consistently and forcefully advocate for an immediate cessation of hostilities, de-escalation, and a return to dialogue. Offer African diplomatic channels if feasible and welcomed. Frame the conflict as a threat to global stability with potential ripple effects.
Uphold International Law & Humanitarian Principles: Condemn violations of international humanitarian law by many party – indiscriminate attacks on civilians, targeting of infrastructure, or actions exacerbating humanitarian crises. Champion the protection of civilians and adherence to the laws of war universally.
4. Address Root Causes: Advocate for addressing the underlying regional tensions fueling the conflict, including the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, within the framework of UN resolutions and international law. Support a negotiated two-state solution.
5. Mitigate Domestic Risks: Proactively manage the potential for the conflict to fuel domestic polarization, sectarian tensions, or radicalization through interfaith dialogue, responsible media engagement, and security vigilance.
6. Strengthen Continental Resilience: Use the crisis as a catalyst to accelerate economic diversification, deepen regional integration (AfCFTA), and reduce vulnerability to external geopolitical shocks. Build partnerships based on mutual respect and development, not patronage or alignment in distant conflicts.
Conclusion: Agency in the Face of Entanglement
The Iran-Israel conflict is not Africa’s war. Choosing sides offers minimal potential gain while carrying immense, potentially devastating economic, political, and social risks. The historical, economic, political, and religious realities across the continent overwhelmingly point towards a strategy of principled neutrality, active peace advocacy, and unwavering focus on African stability and development.
African nations possess significant moral authority and collective weight on the international stage. Their most powerful role lies not in aligning with distant belligerents, but in consistently demanding adherence to international law, championing diplomatic solutions, protecting civilians, and safeguarding their own hard-won sovereignty and developmental trajectories. By asserting agency and prioritizing continental peace and prosperity, African countries can navigate this treacherous geopolitical landscape with integrity and foresight, serving their own people and contributing to a more stable world order. The path forward is defined not by taking sides, but by upholding principles and pursuing peace.
By : Jide Adesina
1stafrika
