Oil prices climbed sharply on Sunday following the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new supreme leader, replacing his father after a Feb. 28 U.S.-Israeli airstrike killed Ali Khamenei. Trading Economics data indicated that crude benchmarks reacted to heightened Middle East tensions and potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a key conduit for global oil shipments.

The price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, stood at $101.19 per barrel shortly after trading resumed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, up 9.2 percent from Friday’s close of $92.69. West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the U.S. light, sweet crude, reached $107.06 per barrel, representing a 16.2 percent increase over Friday’s settlement of $90.90.

The surge reflects market concern over supply chain risks in the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20 percent of global oil trade passes, is particularly sensitive to geopolitical instability. Investors reacted to the leadership change in Iran as a factor that could influence regional decision-making and maritime security, even though immediate production levels remained unchanged.

Analysts noted that both Brent and WTI could continue to fluctuate in intraday trading as markets digest the implications of the leadership transition. Crude prices remain highly sensitive to regional political developments and military escalations.

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.

U.S. President Donald Trump said Sunday that his newly established Board of Peace secured $5 billion in pledges to rebuild war-devastated Gaza and commitments of thousands of personnel for an international stabilization and police mission. The pledges will be formally announced at the board’s inaugural meeting in Washington on Thursday.

$5 Billion in Initial Reconstruction Commitments

In a social media statement, Trump described the Board of Peace as potentially “the most consequential international body in history” and said he was honored to serve as its chairman. He did not specify which member states are contributing funds or personnel.

The board includes more than 20 members, though it remains unclear how many will attend the first session. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who met Trump at the White House last week, is not expected to participate in the gathering.

Indonesia Signals 8,000-Troop Readiness

Indonesia’s military announced Sunday that up to 8,000 troops could be prepared by the end of June for possible deployment to Gaza as part of a humanitarian and peace mission. The statement marks the first firm military commitment secured by the Republican president for the proposed stabilization force.

Under the Oct. 10 U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, an armed international stabilization force is envisioned to maintain security and oversee the disarmament of Hamas fighters — a central demand of Israel. So far, few countries have publicly expressed willingness to contribute troops.

A $70 Billion Reconstruction Challenge

Rebuilding Gaza presents a formidable financial and logistical challenge. The United Nations, World Bank and European Union estimate that total reconstruction costs could reach $70 billion. After more than two years of Israeli bombardment, large swaths of the Gaza Strip have been left in ruins.

Although the Oct. 10 ceasefire significantly reduced the heaviest fighting in the more than two-year conflict, Israeli forces have continued periodic airstrikes and frequently open fire near military-controlled zones, according to reports from the territory.

Broader Mandate and Global Implications

Initially perceived as a mechanism focused solely on ending the Israel-Hamas war, the Board of Peace has evolved into what Trump envisions as a broader platform for resolving global crises. The initiative appears to reflect Washington’s effort to reshape elements of the post-World War II international order and, potentially, to sidestep the United Nations framework.

Several key U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere have declined to join the body, citing concerns that it may function as a parallel structure to the UN Security Council.