Lazarus Kwedhi
As conventional wisdom dictates, “oshilongo mpa oosa, mpa ondigolo” and “gumwe otati sa, gumwe otati kalako”, meaning that one part of the country is mourning while another part is celebrating. One person wants you dead while another wants you alive. In light of this conventional wisdom, the USA–Israel coordinated military strike against the Islamic Republic of Iran that reportedly killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other national and military leaders has ignited mixed feelings among Iranians, in Middle Eastern countries, and around the world at large.
Anti-Islamic Republic government supporters are seen supporting the USA–Israel military invasion of Iran and celebrating the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader. On the other hand, pro–Islamic Republic supporters are condemning the invasion and mourning the death of the Supreme Leader, civilians, and their relatives.
In the same light, allies from the countries directly involved in the conflict are mobilising and coordinating their resources to defend their positions and win the war. Namibia has joined other nation-states around the world in calling for the de-escalation of the war and for diplomacy to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict between the USA-Israel alliance and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In Namibia, this call finds relevance in the concept of non-alignment cherished under the Namibian foreign policy principle that Namibia is a “friend to all and enemy to none”. In this war conflict, Namibia is guided by its foreign policy not to take sides but to remain neutral in order not to jeopardise existing bilateral trade relations between Namibia and the USA, Israel, and Iran.
Namibia’s call for de-escalation and diplomacy also finds legitimacy in the United Nations Security Council charter, which promotes peaceful resolution in disputes between nations, aiming to avert and minimise the spill-over effects of war on the domestic and global economy. Namibia’s trade agreements with the USA, Israel, and Iran, respectively, form part of this concern. Therefore, the escalation of war between these three nations and their allies also has the potential to cause immediate and long-term effects on the Namibian export and import trade market.
The shortfall of the call for de-escalation and diplomacy
The call for de-escalation of war and diplomatic negotiations between the USA-Israel alliance and Iran is a good gesture in the realm of promoting global peace and security. However, at this stage such calls are not sufficient to avert war between the two distinctive empires, the USA–Israel and Iran.
The war between the USA–Israel alliance and Iran appears inevitable due to fundamental differences and competing public values rooted in economic and religious aspirations among these nations. Therefore, the fundamental objective of this article is to highlight some shortcomings explaining why the call for de-escalation and diplomacy may not be a sufficient solution to stop the USA–Israel war against Iran.
The USA–Israel coordinated war against Iran broke out and may escalate largely because of irreconcilable differences and competing public values. These differences lie in the capitalist economic system and Christian religious values promoted globally by the USA and Israel, contrasted with the nationalised economic policies, particularly in the oil industry, and the Islamic religious state leadership in Iran.
While Iran is reportedly being attacked by the USA and Israel over nuclear enrichment activities aimed at advancing nuclear weapons capabilities, which are perceived as a threat to the USA’s global position and Israel’s security, the deeper issue lies in broader ideological and geopolitical competition. The fundamental concern is to prevent the expansion of Iran’s Islamic religious and economic agenda and its spill-over effects in the Middle East and beyond.
The USA–Israel war is inevitable
The USA–Israel war against Iran appears inevitable because, fundamentally, war has historically been the sport of great empires motivated by the insatiable desire to extend their dominance globally. Great empires such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and various European empires expanded and maintained their dominance beyond their borders by invading smaller states.
The USA, as a great empire, may choose war with Iran to preserve its reputation as a global superpower, to gain commercial advantage in global trade markets, particularly in the oil industry in Iran and the Middle East, to defend its ideological and strategic interests, and to support the territorial security ambitions of Israel in the region.
In light of these values, territorial ambitions, economic interests, and ideological motivations cannot easily be achieved merely through calls for de-escalation and diplomacy without the possibility of military confrontation. At this stage, the USA may not easily be persuaded by other states to de-escalate or engage in diplomatic negotiations unless Iran unconditionally surrenders or accepts USA–Israel terms going forward. Alternatively, Iran could surprise the USA–Israel alliance with an effective self-defence strategy that forces the USA to withdraw its military campaign, similar to what occurred during the Vietnam War during the Cold War era.
At this juncture it should be noted that great empires rarely negotiate on equal terms. Rather, they tend to impose their will and aspirations on smaller nations with the ultimate goal of dominance.
Great empires do not negotiate
War is the sport of great empires, and historically there is nothing unusual about it. War has long been a traditional instrument used by powerful states to gain recognition and dominance over smaller empires.
European domination and colonisation of the Americas, Australia, Canada, and Africa during the Scramble for Africa was not achieved through diplomacy but through warfare. Meanwhile, the relative harmony among European states under institutions such as the European Union emerged only after devastating conflicts such as World War I and World War II.
Great empires tend to impose their demands on smaller empires. Resistance from smaller states is often met first with soft power tools such as trade tariffs, sanctions, and regime change strategies and ultimately with hard power through military invasion.
Iran, like several other countries perceived as hostile to the USA’s economic and ideological agenda, has been under sanctions for decades. Countries such as Iraq and Libya have also experienced regime change interventions by the USA and its allies.
Diplomacy is the talk show of small empires
Diplomacy, the cornerstone of modern international relations, particularly among countries of the Global South and Africa, became prominent after the end of World War II. Although processes such as decolonisation appeared promising, critics argue that they sometimes served to maintain global economic and political structures dominated by powerful states.
In this sense, diplomacy often becomes the platform of smaller empires seeking mutual respect and win-win solutions on the negotiation table, guided by the principle that if you are not strong, you must be smart.
However, when diplomacy fails, states possessing military power often revert to war as the ultimate method of resolving existential conflicts.
The flood is coming: small empires, prepare your swimming costumes.
No single nation can permanently satisfy the long-term interests of great empires. Despite the reported death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the celebrations by anti-Islamic Republic groups, such jubilation may only be temporary. History shows that great empires have no permanent friends, only permanent interests.
Leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Robert Mugabe were once supported by powerful states but later fell out of favour when their policies conflicted with those interests.
The dynamics of modern warfare have changed due to technological advancements. Iran’s military retaliation against foreign military bases in the Middle East demonstrates that the presence of great-power military bases in smaller states does not guarantee protection if the war spreads across the region.
Countries such as the United Arab Emirates have built strong economies and infrastructure over the years, but such progress could be severely damaged if a full-scale regional war were to erupt. The sad reality is that the USA has rarely fought wars on its own soil; instead, it has often fought abroad using allied territories as operational bases.
