West African countries cooperate against jihadism

 

To fight growing cross-border terrorism, Benin and Nigeria join forces

Authorities in Benin and Nigeria have said they are preparing a bilateral security cooperation to combat terrorist groups operating along their shared border. As jihadist groups increasingly launch attacks beyond the border of Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali, the coastal states like Benin, Togo and even Côte d'Ivoire have become new targets, and cross-border cooperation is needed, experts say.

-

By Melissa Chemam

-

Nigerian soldiers from the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) drive an armoured truck in Monguno, Borno state, Nigeria, on 5 July, 2025. 

The objective is clear: to join forces to fight terrorism more effectively, that is why Benin and Nigeria are preparing a cross-border security strategy to be soon officialised.

High-ranking military officials in charge of counterterrorism operations in both countries met in Cotonou on 27 February. And French leaders also participated in the meeting, officially to support this initiative.

The cooperation will include the coordination of border patrols, joint operations, intelligence sharing, and increased monitoring of cross-border flows, which are to be discussed later in March.

According to Sunday Dare, Senior Advisor to Nigeria's President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the current administration cares deeply about regional cooperation across the West African subregion on the issue of security, not just amongst Nigeria and Benin's Republic. 

He told me that, yes, "because of the porosity of the borders, we've had armed trafficking, we've had criminal gangs, we've had Boko Haram, we've had ISIS and other groups."

But President Tinubu is committed to fostering a very cordial relationship with Benin and its other neighbours that will lead to better economic development, his adviser said.

"Just last month he opened the borders to not just Benin, but also Niger, and that has improved relations," Dare added.

'Step in the right direction'

"It's definitely a step in the right direction," senior analyst for west Africa at ACLED, Heni Nsaibia, told me. "Because, as research has shown, border security has really been a factor contributing to this insecurity that we have seen in the Benin, Niger and Nigeria borderlands in particular."

Northeastern Benin is bordering northwestern Nigeria, and armed terrorist groups are increasing their attacks on both sides of the border.

"Due to very weak border security and coordination between concerned states, seeing Benin and Nigeria reinforcing their cooperation is particularly relevant," Nsaibia added, "because we have seen both Sahelian and Nigerian groups operating across their common borders, especially between the Borgou Department and Kwara State, on the respective side on the border."

Nsaibia also underlined that it's not only Benin and Nigeria that are reinforcing their military cooperation.

"We have also seen in the past weeks that Ghana and Burkina Faso have taken similar steps. From a regional perspective, these borders are most exposed to jihadist violence, and I think it makes sense for these countries to have these types of rapprochement between each other."

Increased, spreading attacks

The border area between Benin, Niger and Nigeria has actually become a new centre of jihadist violence in 2025, with a sharp increase in attacks, according to Nsaibia's most recent research, published last week by ACLED, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data group, which tracks victims of global conflict.

Violence involving the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM) and the Islamic State in the Sahel (EIS) was up 86 percent compared to 2024. Deaths jumped by 26 percent, according to ACLED.

Both groups have long been concentrated in the Sahel countries of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, but are now spreading to west Africa's coastal countries.

"Over the past year, the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP) have expanded their violent campaigns in the Benin, Niger, and Nigeria borderlands," Nsaibia wrote in his analysis.

ACLED data indicate that this expansion has entered a new phase marked by entrenchment and the transformation of littoral border regions into a flashpoint of violence, the expert added. "Sahelian jihadist militants have escalated, entrenched, and increasingly broadcast their footprint."

From Benin to Togo and Côte d'Ivoire

Founded in Mali in 2017, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) is now the main jihadist group in the central Sahel. Since 2019, the al-Qaeda affiliate has also been carrying out attacks in countries along the Gulf of Guinea, including Côte d’Ivoire, Benin and Togo.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) also released a report on 20 February, showing that JNIM’s spread beyond the Sahel is a major security concern for West African countries. It cites Benin and Togo as the countries in the greatest peril.

"Yet expansion is not the main priority for the group, whose leaders are concerned that pushing outward too fast could fragment the movement’s ranks," the report states.

To respond to the jihadists’ advance, coastal states should indeed invest more in intelligence gathering to develop "a more granular understanding of potential local threats," according to ICG. 

Finally, states should explore the scope for reaching understandings with jihadists aimed at reducing levels of violence.

Cross-border attacks

In Benin and Nigeria, the increase in attacks has been seen in areas such as Alibori and Borgou in northern Benin, the Dosso region of southern Niger, and the Nigerian states of Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger and Kwara.

Cross-border attacks by jihadists from Niger and Burkina Faso against the military made last year "the deadliest year to date" in Benin, research indicates.

JNIM last year also claimed responsibility for the first time for an attack on Nigerian soil, said Nsaibia.

The increase in violence came be blamed on "limited state presence", according to the expert, as well as weakened regional cooperation since Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger withdrew from the Ecowas bloc.

The jihadists are consolidating their presence in the border area through recruitment across ethnic and linguistic lines, by co-opting local bandits and control of smuggling routes, particularly of fuel from northern Nigeria to the Niger river and Benin.

The 'right of pursuit into neighbouring territory'

All expert agree the increased cooperation between Benin and Nigeria is good news.

The Beninese representative, General Abu Issa, Chief of Staff of the Army, is in charge, accompanied by several high-ranking officers, including the commander of Operation Mirador.

The Nigerian delegation is led by Major General Adamu Laka, director of the National Counter-Terrorism Centre.

Some experts are advocating for the inclusion of a right of pursuit, allowing the tracking of terrorists even into neighboring territory when they take refuge there after an attack.

A new meeting is scheduled before the end of March in Benin, according to the authorities, to make progress on the draft memorandum of understanding.

"As I understand it, it relates to preventing militant activity and by doing so, trying to mitigate the threat through joint patrols, increased intelligence sharing," Nsaibia told me, "but also the right of pursuit, that is to the respective country being able to pursue militants that often flee and jump the border in order to escape the intervening forces." 

He thinks this combination makes a lot of sense, and said talks about a joint Ecowas force are also in the making.

-

Read also these pieces:

*US strikes on Nigeria set 'deeply troubling precedent' for African governance

*US looks to revitalise relations with Mali with envoy visit to Bamako

DRC - conflict minerals

 

Landslide kills at least 200 at Congo's Rubaya mine, including 70 children

More than 200 people died on Tuesday in a landslide triggered by heavy rains at the Rubaya coltan mine in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, the country's mines ministry said on Wednesday evening. The rebels in charge of the site have not confirmed. 

The Congolese government has reported more than 200 deaths in the landslide at the Rubaya mining site, according to a statement released on Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Mines.

The mines ministry also said that around 70 children were among the victims.

The landslide occurred there Tuesday afternoon, according to witnesses.

Disputed figures

"The provisional death toll stands at more than 200 Congolese citizens, including approximately 70 child miners, and numerous injured who have been evacuated to medical facilities in Goma," to the statement sent to news agencies.

These figures could not be confirmed by AFP or Reuters with independent sources in this remote region, where neither humanitarian organisations nor large-scale health facilities have access and where telecommunications are regularly cut off.

A senior official from the AFC/M23 rebel group, which controls the mine, had told Reuters earlier that only five or six died in the accident.

"The damaged site is one of those where continued operation had been discouraged pending the securing of the area and the implementation of protective measures for miners. The incident is due to the heavy rains of the last few days," another senior AFC/M23 official said.

The site has been under the control of the AFC/M23 rebel group since 2024, and was recently added to a shortlist of mining assets being offered by the Congolese government to the United States under a minerals cooperation framework.

So, Congolese authorities have not been present on the site since 2024.

The site is located approximately 70 kilometers west of Goma, the capital of the troubled North Kivu province in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and covers several dozen square kilometers. 

Goma's residents reflect on life a year after DR Congo city fell to M23 rebels

Since its resurgence in late 2021, the anti-government group M23 (March 23 Movement), with the support of Kigali and the Rwandan army, has seized vast swathes of territory in eastern DRC, a region rich in natural resources and ravaged by conflict for three decades.

Conflict minerals

The mining town of Rubaya produces between 15 and 30 percent of the world's coltan production—a strategic mineral for the electronics industry.

Spotlight on Africa: the race for Africa's critical minerals

Coltan is processed into tantalum, a heat-resistant metal that is in high demand by makers of mobile phones, computers, aerospace components and gas turbines.

It is widely mined in the DRC, which is estimated to hold at least 60 percent of the world's reserves.

Thousands of artisanal miners work daily in the Rubaya mines, in precarious conditions and without safety measures, most often equipped with only shovels and a pair of rubber boots.

The latest incident came a month after another disaster at the site in late January / early February, which killed at least several people according to an M23 officia, but more than 200 people according to the authorities in Kinshasa. 

In recent days, fighting had intensified near the mining site, in this area where government forces have conducted attacks against the rebel group, including drone strikes.

 (with newswires)

IWD 2026

 

Not such great news this year...

Women’s rights are regressing worldwide, warns UN gender equality chief

As an increase in conflicts leads to a significant spike in gender-based violence, women across the world face a “justice gap” with discriminatory laws reported in most countries, according to a report from gender equality agency UN Women, released this week ahead of International Women's Day. 

-

“As the world navigates democratic backsliding, rising conflicts, economic pressures and shrinking of civic space, there is an increasingly organised pushback at gender equality and regression of women's rights,” Sarah Hendriks, UN Women director, policy, programme and intergovernmental division told reporters at a briefing in New York this week, on Wednesday. 

The report is titled Ensuring and Strengthening Access to Justice for All Women and Girls, and shows that laws are being reshaped worldwide to "restrict women’s freedoms, silence their voices, and allow abuse without consequence." 

Sarah Hendriks, UN Women Director of the Policy, Programme and Intergovernmental Support Division, briefs reporters on the global launch of the UN Secretary-General's report, "Ensuring and Strengthening Access to Justice for All Women and Girls," ahead of International Women's Day 2026 (source: UN Women).

It also warns that women and girls are being failed by the very systems meant to protect them, leaving them exposed to abuse, injustice and impunity as backlash against gender equality intensifies. 

“Justice systems do not stand apart from those pressures, they actually reflect them,” Hendriks said, as shared in UN Women's press statement. 

Lack of justice and accountability

Five key areas seem to prevent fairness in outcomes for women and girls, according to the report. They thus face greater barriers to justice than men in nearly 70 per cent of the countries surveyed.

These areas are discriminatory legal frameworks, social norms, gaps between laws and implementation, traditional justice systems independent from the state, and conflicts. All serve "to reinforce inequalities and prevent advancing meaningful justice for women."

Consequently, no country in the world has reached full legal equality for women and girls, UN Women reports.

"From protection against gender-based violence to equal pay, women and girls remain unequal under the law, as impunity for violations of their rights persists worldwide," UN Women added in their press release.

This is because justice systems meant to uphold rights and the rule of law are failing women and girls everywhere.

"Women globally hold just 64 percent of the legal rights of men, exposing them to discrimination, violence, and exclusion at every stage of their lives," the UN agency reports.

More conflicts, less rights

The report shows that, in 2024, 676 million women and girls were living within 50 kilometres of a deadly conflict, which is the highest number recorded since the 1990s.

The increased scale of conflict has led to increased levels of unmet justice needs, it reads. The proliferation of conflicts has also been accompanied by a shocking disregard for international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

The United Nations also documented an increase by 87 percent of the number of conflict-related sexual violence violations, in just two years.

Independent human rights experts call for more attention to grave violations of international law.

"There is an urgent need to uphold international legal obligations, including by complying with the provisional orders and determinations of the International Court of Justice, and to prevent and punish crimes, especially those that disproportionately target women and girls." 

 

UN recommendations

The UN Women report tries to raise room for improvement as well.

It points out ways to fight women's and girls' disempowerment.

"Ensuring that women and girls can exercise their right to equal access to justice requires political will and implementing a comprehensive set of gender-responsive actions," it reads.

It reminds us of existing mechanisms to do so, such as the “Beijing+30 Action Agenda: for all women and girls”, designed to fulfil the vision of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and accelerate the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Governments at all levels and other relevant stakeholders should also take urgent actions to strengthen access to justice for all women and girls by 2030, such as institutional change in justice systems, the respect of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, effective implementation of protective laws when they exits, adoption of news laws, reinforcement of prevention measures and allocations of funds for women's rights.

“Justice systems can evolve, they can transform,” UN Women noted, adding that since 1970 more than 600 million women have gained access to economic opportunities because of family law reform. 

Spain stands up to Trum on Iran

 

Spain still says no to war

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez delivered a strong rebuttal to US President Donald Trump's threat to end trade with Spain, on Tuesday, by declaring his opposition to war and what he called the "breakdown of international law".

In a 10-minute televised address, the Spanish prime minister reflected on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as the Iraq War more than 20 years ago, and said the Spanish government's position could be summed up as "no to war".

But this Wednesday, the Spanish government had to dismiss today an assertion from Trump's administration that Madrid was now supporting the US on Iran...

 Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares has denies the White House’s claim “categorically”.

“Not a single comma has changed, and I have no idea whatsoever what they might be referring to,” Albares told Hora25 radio programme.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt suggested on Wednesday that the Spanish position of refusing to allow the country’s military bases in the war against Iran has changed.

“With respect to Spain, I think they heard the president’s message yesterday loud and clear, and it’s my understanding, over the past several hours, they’ve agreed to cooperate with the US military,” Leavitt told reporters.

Spain just reiterated its opposition to war on Iran despite Trump's threat of cutting off trade with the European country.

“The world, Europe, and Spain have faced this critical moment before. In 2003, a few irresponsible leaders dragged us into an illegal war in the Middle East that brought nothing but insecurity and pain,” Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote on X on Wednesday.

He added that Spain’s position continues to be to reject war, violations of international law and “the illusion that we can solve the world’s problems with bombs”.

Spain has also been a vocal critic of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

A question arises: Is Europe at war againt Iran? supporting the USA and Israel?

 

Or is it going this way?

Are France and Germany supporting the USA and Israel in their attack on Iran?

-

Macron delivered the address to the nation at 8pm.

Tonight, the French President said in televised address to the nation that he has ordered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, its air assets, and its frigate escort to set sail for the Mediterranean "following the situation in the Middle East". 

He had warned that a widening war between the United States, Israel and Iran risks spilling over to Europe's borders.

He had already said on Sunday, during a meeting of France's defence council, that France would raise its defence posture in the Middle East to protect "its nationals and bases there", and to "support countries in the region targeted by Iran", in retaliation for the Israeli-US strikes.

"Faced with this unstable situation and the uncertainties of the coming days, I have ordered the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, its air assets, and its frigate escort to set sail for the Mediterranean," he said.

He also aknowledged that France shot down drones 'in self-defence' early in the Iran war.

"We reacted immediately and shot down drones in self-defence in the early hours of the conflict to defend the airspace of our allies, who know they can count on us," Macron said, referring to defence agreements with Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

-

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz backed the aims of the US-Israeli war on Iran this Tuesday, as he visited the White House.

"This is, of course, damaging our economies. This is true for the oil prices, and this is true for the gas prices as well," Merz told reporters in the Oval Office as he met Trump.

He did call for its early end, voicing fear for the global economy... But didn't condemn the attacks, quite the opposite.

Merz, who has been among Europe's more "hawkish voices on Iran", according to news agencies and experts, became the first foreign leader to see Trump after the United States and Israel began bombing Iran early morning on Saturday. 

Merz had criticized Iran's ruling clerics sharply over their deadly crackdown on protests in January, and said that he and Trump "are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran away."

He only underlined that economic worries on oild are "the reason why we all hope that this war will come to an end as soon as possible"...

-

No need to say, the journalism student I was in 2003 when we demonstrated against Bush, the war in Iraq and the violations against international law, is totally appalled already...

-

More later...

Iran: African reactions

  

Africa calls for restraint as bombing in and around Iran intensify, urging their citizens to stay safe 

Following the attack launched by the United States and Israel on Iran on Saturday morning, and the risk of regional conflagration, the African continent is making its voice heard. Iran's allies denounced a violation of international law, like South Africa and Chad. But mostly the African continental and regional called for restraint and their citizens in the region to stay safe.  

-

Melissa Chemam

-

South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa was the first African leader to react. He said on Saturday that the US and Israeli strikes on Iran violated international law.

"Anticipatory self-defence is not permitted under international law and self-defence cannot be based on assumption or anticipation," he said in a statement, calling for "maximum restraint".

South Africa was until recently the only African member of the BRICS group, which includes Iran, Brazil, Russia, India and China, but recently accepted a few new members from the Arab world and beyond (Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates).

Despite its ties with Tehran, the South African government reacted in a measured manner, calling on all parties to exercise restraint.

But in the South African political landscape, other parties were more vocal. Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) reacted very differently, with the radical left-wing group insisting that Iran "has the right to defend itself" and denouncing a Washington-Tel Aviv alliance "resolutely determined to defend Israeli interests throughout the region, whatever the human cost."

Calls for restraint

The African Union (AU) said in a statement that the military strikes carried out by the United States in coordination with Israeli forces against targets inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Iran's subsequent response, "represent a perilous and deeply troubling escalation—one that marks a serious intensification of hostilities in the Middle East and threatens to engulf the entire region in an uncontrollable cycle of violence, suffering, and pain."

It also called for restraint, urgent de-escalation, and sustained dialogue. "All parties must act fully in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter to safeguard international peace and security."

The Chair also condemned on Saturday evening the Iranian missile and drone attacks against its neighbours Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

The Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) has also expressed its deep concern regarding the escalating hostilities in the Gulf. Ecowas emphasised that "any prolonged disruption in the Persian Gulf would threaten global oil and gas flows," according to Afrik.com.

"A surge in energy prices would have an immediate impact on West African economies, already weakened by inflation and dependence on refined product imports," the organisation added.

It also underlined risks to food security, as many African states rely on imports of cereals and agricultural inputs transiting through sensitive trade routes.  

Most African media, like Seneplus in Senegal, TSA in Algeria and Ledjely in Guinea note that populations in Africa sympathise with Iran and its strategy to counteract the USA's dominance, but fear retaliation.  

Different allyships

Elsewhere on the African continent, reactions have been pouring in since Saturday. Several African countries are calling for de-escalation and respect for international law, but others are taking a clearer stance.

Chadian President Mahamat Idriss Déby began by expressing "fraternal compassion to Ayatollah Khamenei, as well as to the entire brotherly people of Iran in the face of this adversity that has struck a sister nation." N'Djamena clarified a few moments later that it also condemns with equal firmness the Iranian attacks against brotherly countries.

The Kingdom of Morocco, closer to Israel since the signature of the Abraham Accords, denounced in a statement the "abhorrent Iranian missile attacks that violated the integrity and security of brotherly Arab states."

Other nations, such as Senegal, Algeria, Kenya, and Ghana, have been calling for an immediate ceasefire since Saturday, while urging their citizens to exercise caution.

Africans in the Arab peninsula

In the South West Asia region itself, African inhabitants have been living in fear these past few days, notably in Dubai, as Iranian missiles have already caused damage, including at the international airport.

"This morning, I was woken up by a missile that exploded over my neighborhood," Ibrahima, a young Senegalese man who lives in Dubai, told RFI. "We're trying to keep our families informed, and they're keeping us updated through the news channels. 

He added the situation is quite stressful. "We get alert messages on all our phones when the missiles are approaching. We see and hear the intercepted missiles coming from Iran. It’s true that it’s quite dramatic and stressful, all day long.”

A Cameroonian woman contacted by RFI said: “The instruction given so far is to stay home, not to go out onto balconies or look out of windows, because the missile debris that has been falling since last night is serious."

A five-star hotel was hit overnight and large shopping centers are closed because of the debris.

The authorities in Cameroon, through their diplomatic missions, called on the entire Cameroonian diaspora residing in countries of the region to strictly adhere to the preventive security measures issued by their host governments.

Ghanaian authorities also called their citizens residing in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to stay home as much as possible and "comply with directives issued by local authorities."

"illegal act of aggression"

 

Trump and Netanyahu’s attack on Iran is an illegal act of aggression

 - by Kenneth Roth

Their actions are no different from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or Rwandan president Paul Kagame’s invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo

-

We shouldn’t beat around the bush: Donald Trump’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s military attack on Iran is an illegal act of aggression. There is no lawful justification for it. It is no different from Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or Rwandan president Paul Kagame’s invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The United Nations charter allows the use of military force in only two circumstances – with authorization of the UN security council, or as self-defense from an actual or imminent armed attack. Neither was present.

In his video justification for the war, Trump spoke of Iran’s “imminent threat”, but there is no evidence to support it. He recited a litany of past attacks that he attributed to Iran, but none of them is ongoing or imminent. At best Trump sought to prevent future harm – Netanyahu used the term “pre-emptive” – but prevention is no justification for war because it would open Pandora’s box to countless armed conflicts.

To prevent future threats, governments must resort to diplomacy combined with non-military forms of pressure. Iran is already subject to comprehensive sanctions, but Trump and Netanyahu cut diplomacy short because they didn’t seem to want to accept yes for an answer. With each leader facing political challenges at home as elections approach, they appeared all too eager to Bomb Iran!

Remarkably, it isn’t even clear what the focus was during the now-suspended negotiations. Trump, never one for precision, said that Iran must agree never to have a nuclear weapon, but it has repeatedly said exactly that. To underscore the point, it seemed open to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities and to dilute what remains (after the June 2025 US bombing) of its highly enriched uranium.

Rather, the sticking point seemed to be whether Iran could enrich uranium. At various stages the US government had demanded that Iran forsake any enrichment. The Iranian negotiators resisted, noting every government’s right to enrich under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There were some indications that Washington had backed away from an absolute version of that demand (although Trump repeated it on Friday), and that Tehran was offering face-saving compromises such as a limit on enrichment to the modest levels needed for medical or scientific isotopes but far from what is needed for weapons.

On some occasions, the US government had also sought limits on Iran’s ballistic missiles and its support for regional armed groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. But recent accounts of the negotiations suggested that these demands may no longer have been at the heart of the discussions.

We will never know how these negotiations might have played out. Trump seems to have decided that Iran wasn’t serious about reaching a deal so he launched the attack. Netanyahu never wanted a deal; as is his wont, he preferred a military solution. An avoidable war – a war of choice, not necessity – thus was initiated in blatant violation of international law.

With the bombing having killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump has urged the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the government that has long suppressed them. “The hour of freedom” is at hand, he announced.

There is no doubt that the Iranian government is despicable. It met January protests by mowing down protesters – at least 7,000 dead, if not many more. But the goal of regime change is no defense to the crime of aggression.

Nor is there a case for humanitarian intervention. Given that killing is inherent in war – not to mention the risk to civilians, such as the school that was hit on the first day of the bombing, killing dozens, mostly children – humanitarian intervention can be justified only to stop ongoing or imminent mass slaughter. There was nothing of the sort. Humanitarian intervention cannot be invoked merely to retaliate for past repression, which is the most that can be said for the Trump-Netanyahu attack.

For these reasons, the international response to the US-Israeli attack has been cool at best. Britain refused to allow US bombers to attack Iran from its military base at Diego Garcia. Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement that was critical of Iran but notably did not endorse the invasion.

One can understand their disquiet. The greatest threat to Europe today comes from Russia, but the attack on Iran hands Putin the argument of hypocrisy to counter challenges to his invasion of Ukraine. It is harder to defend international law when the world’s most powerful government openly flouts it.

As with any military attack, the consequences can be difficult to predict. The Iranian leader was 86 years old, so the regime undoubtedly was preparing in any event to name a successor. And regime change is difficult to accomplish from the air, as Trump discovered in Venezuela where he removed Nicolás Maduro from the scene but otherwise kept the Maduro regime largely intact.

Khamenei was a hard-liner who brooked no dissent and clung to Iran’s declared right to enrich uranium despite the enormous hardship imposed on the Iranian people by the resulting sanctions. Even if the Islamic Republic does not topple, it is possible that his successor will be more accommodating – willing to allow somewhat more freedom, as the Venezuela regime minus Maduro has been. But Venezuela remains far from a democracy, and there is little reason to believe that a modified Iranian regime would be much better.

Will the Iranian people choose this moment to rise up again as part of their longstanding quest for a rights-respecting government? Will the regime respond with its customary and increasingly lethal brutality? And if so, will the ending be any different from past disappointments? It is too early to make predictions.

It would be wonderful if the Iranian people could taste democracy, if Iranian women could enjoy the spirit of their 2022 “Women, Life, Freedom” protests, free of the oppressive, misogynistic morality police. But there is also the cautionary lesson learned by the people of Iraq and Libya, where western military intervention yielded chaos that was arguably more deadly than dictatorial rule.

The global ramifications are also troubling. This latest example of Trump’s might-makes-right world view can only encourage other acts of aggression, whether China’s seizure of Taiwan, Ethiopia’s and Eritrea’s threats against Tigray, or the latest fighting between Pakistan and Afghanistan. As Trump attacks Iran despite a lack of nuclear weapons while sparing North Korea, which has 60 or more nuclear warheads, it won’t be difficult for governments to figure out what they need to defend themselves from the bully in the White House.

It is an old military maxim that no war plan survives first contact with the enemy. But that is true off the battlefield as well. The world of diplomacy can be frustratingly slow and inadequate. Yet there are good reasons to respect sovereignty and to seek peaceful resolution of disputes. A world where matters of life and death – the fate of entire countries – rest on the self-serving whims of the likes of Trump and Netanyahu is one filled with peril. I would love to see an end to the ruthless Islamic Republic, but not at the expense of a world where our destiny is dictated by the men with the biggest guns.

• *Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, and former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments

• 
  

-