African governments responded differently to the US-Israel strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliation across the Gulf. Horn states condemned Iran, while South Africa & Senegal cited international law & West African countries urged restraint.
African governments are responding unevenly to the confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran, reflecting economic ties, security alliances and geographic proximity to Middle Eastern trade routes that shape foreign policy decisions across the continent.
The conflict intensified after Washington and Tel Aviv launched Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion against Iranian targets. Iran retaliated with missile strikes targeting several Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq. While the fighting remains centered in the Middle East, political reactions across Africa have exposed divergent strategic calculations.
In the Horn of Africa, governments have largely condemned Iran’s actions while avoiding criticism of the United States or Israel.
Authorities in Somaliland, a self-declared state seeking international recognition, described Iranian strikes on Gulf countries as “unprovoked aggression.” The position reflects Somaliland’s close economic and security ties with the United Arab Emirates, particularly investments in Berbera Port, which form a central part of the territory’s economic strategy.
The region’s diplomatic landscape shifted recently when Israel became the first country to formally recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state. U.S. officials have also indicated that Washington could consider a similar step if strategic cooperation deepens, including port access and potential military facilities.
Neighboring Somalia also condemned Iran’s attacks and expressed solidarity with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman, although the statement notably excluded the UAE. Relations between Mogadishu and Abu Dhabi have deteriorated since Israel recognized Somaliland, a move Somali officials believe the UAE quietly supported.
Other Horn states have linked their responses to economic and migration realities. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed spoke directly with Kuwait’s Crown Prince Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, condemning what he called an “atrocious attack” on Kuwait’s sovereignty.
Millions of Ethiopian workers are employed in Gulf states, and remittances represent a crucial source of foreign exchange for Ethiopia’s economy.
In Kenya, President William Ruto issued one of the continent’s strongest condemnations of Iranian strikes. Kenya “strongly condemns the strikes” targeting Gulf countries, Ruto said, warning that the regionalization of the conflict could threaten international peace and security.
Analysts say these responses reflect geopolitical calculations rather than purely legal considerations. According to Cheta Nwanze, a risk analyst at SBM Intelligence, governments may be positioning themselves alongside the U.S.-Israeli alliance.
“They are gambling that the US-Israeli alliance would win, and would have more influence going forward,” he said.
Elsewhere on the continent, leaders have framed the crisis through legal and institutional concerns.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa emphasized that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits self-defense only after an armed attack has occurred. Pretoria said anticipatory self-defense is not permitted under international law, language widely interpreted as criticism of U.S.-Israeli military doctrine.
In Senegal, Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko delivered an even sharper critique.
A country, without a resolution or a mandate from the United Nations, can decide to strike other countries… This is extremely serious.
Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko
Sonko warned that unilateral military action risks undermining the global order established over the past 50 years.
Many African governments rely on international law as protection against intervention by major powers. Analysts say that erosion of these norms could weaken protections for smaller states.
In West Africa, several governments have chosen carefully balanced statements.
Nigeria’s foreign ministry called for “maximum restraint” and adherence to international law but avoided assigning blame to either Iran or the U.S.-Israeli coalition. Abuja maintains security cooperation with Western partners while preserving economic relations with Gulf states.
Ghana adopted similar language, emphasizing de-escalation and the safety of citizens abroad, while Gambia also urged restraint and protection of civilian infrastructure.
Economic implications remain a concern. Analysts warn that escalation could disrupt global oil markets and shipping routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, which is critical for energy imports.
A report by SBM Intelligence noted that even if the U.S.-Israeli coalition achieves short-term tactical gains, Iran could sustain asymmetric retaliation over time.
Oxford Economics similarly warned that African economies may face higher oil prices and weaker exchange rates.
Security analysts have also flagged potential regional implications, including risks to U.S.-aligned assets in Africa, the future of the Chagos archipelago transfer to Mauritius, and possible escalation involving Houthi strikes against Israeli allies in the Horn of Africa, according to Ryan Cummings, director at Signal Risk.
