By Godson Bill Ocloo
When missiles are fired in the Middle East, the consequences are not confined to Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Washington, they are felt in Accra, Lagos, and across African economies.
The recent coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran mark a significant escalation in global geopolitics. While these actions have been framed as necessary for global security and deterrence, they raise deeper and more uncomfortable questions: Are these strikes truly about protecting the world, or are they manifestations of power politics in a shifting international order?
From a human security perspective, the answer lies in understanding not only the intentions of states but the real consequences for people and economies across the globe.
The Legitimacy Question: Law or Strategy?
Under international law, the use of force is justified primarily under self-defense or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In this case, the absence of clear multilateral authorization has fueled debate about the legitimacy of the strikes.
The United States and Israel argue that their actions are pre-emptive, aimed at preventing Iran from advancing military capabilities and destabilizing the region. However, critics contend that such unilateral actions risk undermining the very international system designed to regulate the use of force.
This tension exposes a fundamental contradiction in global governance: when powerful states act outside multilateral frameworks, the rules-based order becomes selective rather than universal.
Iran: Threat or Strategic Rival?
The narrative that Iran poses a threat to global security is not without basis, particularly given its regional alliances and influence. However, from an analytical standpoint, threat perception is rarely neutral, it is shaped by geopolitical interests.Iran is both a regional actor with strategic ambitions and a state operating within a hostile security environment.
To reduce the conflict to a simple binary of “good versus evil” is to ignore the complex web of historical grievances, proxy conflicts, and power rivalries that define the Middle East.In security analysis, oversimplification is often the greatest risk.
A Region on Edge
Recent strikes have targeted critical military and energy infrastructure, including key facilities linked to Iran’s oil and gas production, contributing to immediate global market reactions. The broader concern lies in escalation. Iran has already signaled potential retaliation, including threats to strategic maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, a corridor through which nearly 20% of global oil supply passes.
Even limited disruption to this chokepoint could send oil prices above $100 per barrel, with cascading effects on global inflation and economic stability. This is not just a regional crisis; it is a global economic trigger.
The United Nations: A System Under Strain
The response of the United Nations has largely centered on calls for restraint and de-escalation. However, the inability of the UNSC to take decisive action reflects deeper structural challenges. When major powers are directly involved in conflict, the effectiveness of global institutions becomes constrained. This reality weakens confidence in multilateral systems and raises concerns about the future of collective security.
Historical Echoes: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
This is not the first time military interventions have been justified in the name of global security. The experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya remain cautionary examples. While such interventions may achieve short-term military objectives, their long-term consequences often include instability, weakened institutions, and humanitarian crises. These precedents compel us to ask: are current actions repeating old patterns under new justifications?
Africa in the Line of Economic Fire
For Africa, the most immediate impact of the conflict is economic. Rising oil prices are already affecting global markets. In worst-case scenarios, disruptions could remove millions of barrels per day from supply, pushing prices significantly higher and triggering inflationary shocks.
For import-dependent economies like Ghana, this translates into: Increased fuel prices, Rising cost of transportation and food Pressure on foreign exchange reserves and Higher cost of living for ordinary citizens.
Beyond energy, global supply chains linked to Middle Eastern shipping routes face disruption, increasing freight costs and trade delays. African economies are therefore not spectators, they are stakeholders in the consequences.
Ghana’s Strategic Imperative
Ghana must respond not react. From a policy perspective, the following actions are critical: Strengthening strategic petroleum reserves, Accelerating investment in renewable energy, Enhancing foreign exchange resilience, Maintaining a balanced and non-aligned diplomatic posture, Protecting Ghanaian nationals abroad and through proactive consular engagement.
The travel advisory issued by Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a commendable first step, reflecting a shift toward preventive security governance.
Power Politics or Global Protection?
The central question remains unresolved because it is inherently complex. Yes, states have a responsibility to protect their security interests. But when such actions bypass multilateral processes, they risk being perceived as instruments of power projection rather than collective security. From a human security standpoint, the focus must shift away from state-centric justifications toward human outcomes: Are civilians safer?Are economies more stable? Is global peace strengthened? If the answers are uncertain, then the justification itself must be interrogated.
Lessons for African Leadership
This crisis offers critical lessons: Strategic autonomy is essential – Africa must avoid dependency on external power blocs. Economic resilience is security – energy shocks can destabilize entire economies. Regional cooperation is critical – collective response mechanisms are needed. Africa must find its voice – not as a passive observer, but as a contributor to global peace discourse.
Conclusion:
The U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran are not just about the Middle East. They are a reflection of a changing global order where power, security, and influence intersect in complex ways. For Ghana and Africa, the challenge is not to take sides but to build resilience. In today’s world, security is no longer defined by borders alone. It is defined by a nation’s ability to withstand external shocks, protect its citizens, and navigate global uncertainty with strategic clarity. The real question is not only who is right or wrong, but who bears the consequences. And increasingly, it is the ordinary citizen, far removed from the battlefield.
The writer is Executive Director, Africa Centre for Human Security and Emergency Management (ACHSEM)