As hostilities between Israel and Iran intensify with the United States getting involved, the tension of a wider conflict and volatility has increased for a region that is already on edge. NGOZI EGENUKA reports that the conflict may reshape global alliances, disrupt international law, and push countries like Nigeria into a complex new world order.

The increasing escalation of conflict in the Middle East, especially between Israel and Iran, has continued to raise uncertainty and questions, particularly with the involvement of America in the conflict. For more than a week, Israel and Iran have exchanged fresh strikes as the conflict grows with little sign of abetting. So far, Iran has reported that no fewer than 400 people have been killed by Israel.

On Saturday night, the United States bombed three major nuclear sites in Iran, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, a move that brought the country directly into the Israel-Iran conflict. President Donald Trump said the strikes “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, and told Tehran to “make peace” or face “far greater” attacks in the future.

In response, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, warned of everlasting consequences for the outrageous strikes. Israel said Iran has launched a fresh strike, where 16 people have been confirmed injured following the U.S strike. In retaliation, the Israeli Air Force has begun a new wave of attacks against “military targets” in western Iran.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said no increase in radiation levels had been detected. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, reacting to America’s action, said the U.S has taken action to alleviate the grave threat of Iran’s nuclear programme. In a statement, he said: “Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the United States has taken action to alleviate that threat.

“The situation in the Middle East remains volatile, and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.”

Araghchi was in Turkey for talks earlier, following Friday’s summit with European officials that yielded no breakthrough. He warned that U.S. involvement would be “dangerous for everybody.” 

Also, in an interview with the BBC last Thursday, Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned Trump not to get involved in the conflict, saying that it is “not America’s war.” 

But Trump won’t take all of that. He had expressed his belief that Iran was “very close” to building nuclear weapons. On Monday, he reportedly said that the United States knows “exactly” where Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is hiding but is letting him live “for now.”

However, shortly after Israel attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites last Friday, Trump administration officials said America was not involved. Before then, Trump indicated that America might become involved, urging Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei to surrender and make peace. 

But Khamenei rejected his demand for surrender. In his speech, which was broadcast on Iranian television, he said “any American military intervention” would be costly and added that the “Iranian nation will not surrender.” Iran has also warned that it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil transit choke points, in retaliation for U.S. involvement in its conflict with Israel.

The attack on Soroka Hospital in Beersheba, southern Israel, by a missile strike, which Iran said was aimed at a military site near the hospital, prompted Israel’s Defence Minister to say Iran’s leader “should no longer exist.” Israel’s Health Ministry says 71 people were injured in that attack. Several other areas in Israel were also hit overnight.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a video on Wednesday that his country’s forces were “progressing step by step” towards eliminating threats posed by Iran’s nuclear sites and ballistic missile arsenal.

“We control the skies over Tehran. We are striking with tremendous force at the regime of the ayatollahs. We are hitting the nuclear sites, the missiles, the headquarters, the symbols of the regime,” he said.

Research Professor, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Femi Otubanjo, said Trump wants to create a disaster. He speculated that even if China and Russia align with Iran, they would most likely not escalate the situation to the extent of supplying weapons and advice, which would, in turn, highlight the collapse of international law.

“I don’t think China and Russia will feel compelled to be on the side of Iran. That’s why their voice is very loud now about negotiation, compromise and so on. What the United States is doing, according to Trump, is negotiating from a position of strength.

“That will weaken Iran to the point that they will accept any deal on its nuclear development projects, which is unfortunate. This would mean that global morality and international law have collapsed. It means that powerful countries can do what they like. The implication for those of us in lesser countries is that we will be prepared for state grab or regime change,” he said.

According to the professor, regime change (a change to democracy) is part of the lexicon of this attack. If they can do that to Iran, the biggest and strongest, in fact, the biggest and strongest country in the Middle East, then they can do it to all of us. He said America’s interest is going to be paramount in our domestic politics.

“And if you don’t play it right with them, they can decide to sponsor a grab of power by forces friendly with them. In terms of the global economy, there will definitely be consequences. Also, if there’s an all-out war in Iran, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, which is a gateway to global trade. It will close it off, and that will affect the prices of crude oil. Once the prices of crude oil are affected, everything will spiral. It’s a vicious circle. So, we can expect some disruption, some price hikes, and some dislocation in the global economy,” he said.

He expressed concern that if these should happen, Nigeria would not be left out of the line of fire, even as a weak country, as whoever is considered an enemy can be destabilised, directly or indirectly.

Professor of Political Science at Lagos State University (LASU), Kayode Soremekun, believes that the organic alliance between the United States and Israel is long-standing, and translates to America always supporting Israel in any conflict.

He argued that this is partly tied to the domestic dynamics of United States politics, adding that Jews control a large portion of the American landscape, namely, the media, economy, knowledge industry, and universities.

“So, to that extent, American presidents, including Trump, must respond to that variable. Moreover, over time, the advocacy on the part of the Jewish lobby is so huge that if any politician or any president wants to jeopardise his career, he only has to go against Israel’s interests. It is in this context that you have to understand the current organic alliance between Trump and Netanyahu.

“In fact, in technical terms, people refer to the two countries as being members of a security community. In international relations, they are members of what is called a security community, in which at all times they will be on the same side of any issue. And this is what is currently playing out. So, whatever is happening on the part of America at the moment is clearly predictable. It is only to be expected. It is consistent with the dynamics of American foreign policy,” he said.

According to him, in terms of political economy, the expectation is that at the rate things are going, all facilities in Iran may be damaged to the extent that Iran may turn out to be a peripheral player in the global oil industry. And to that extent, if there is a shortage, what it means is that oil prices will rise, which, in the short run, will be beneficial to Nigeria in the sense that higher oil prices will mean more revenues.

He, however, explained that more revenues for Nigeria would not necessarily mean more development, as history has shown. It would only be a short-term relief due to the culture of mismanagement.
 
Soremekun speculated that there would be a deepening of the relationship between Israel and the United States and possibly a pushback from Iran and its allies. “But at the moment, given the offensive from Israel on Iran, I am not sure that there can be an effective pushback from Iran and her allies. But what I can see, which is already evolving, is a kind of support or interventionist move from the United Nations and a powerful country like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is well-placed to intervene by talking to Israel and particularly to Washington.

“Israel has the technical capacity to, at any time, take out indices of the leadership of Iran, and once they have that kind of capacity, they can do it to any other country in that region. And to that extent, most other social formations in that part of the world will adopt the approach of ‘better safe than sorry,’” he said.

Noting that the conflict has the potential of engulfing the whole world, he added that Nigeria could bear the unintended consequences of the war. “To that extent, Nigeria’s posture is very prudent in calling for an absolute ceasefire between these two countries. It’s in their interest and ours alike. Moreover, equally important is that we are seeing a new type of warfare in global politics, in which you don’t have to have troops on the ground. Wars are being fought with drones and missiles – on the edge of a new technology,” the professor added.

A communications consultant and public affairs analyst, Dr. Tony Onyima, said the conflict may aggravate regional instability in the Middle East, influencing global alliances and energy markets. Geopolitically, he said, it could sharpen the divide between Western powers supporting Israel and countries like Russia and China that often back Iran diplomatically. This, he said, deepens global polarisation and fuels a reconfiguration of regional alignments, with Gulf nations recalibrating their security and diplomatic priorities.

“Economically, the conflict threatens global oil supply routes, especially via the Strait of Hormuz, driving up prices and disrupting trade. The conflict also redirects global attention and resources toward defence and security at the expense of development and diplomacy,” he added.

For Nigeria, Dr Onyima said the downside of the conflict is that it may lead to spikes in oil prices, affecting fuel importation costs and inflation. However, as a crude oil exporter, Nigeria could benefit from higher global oil prices, potentially increasing foreign exchange earnings.

“Politically, the crisis underscores the need for Nigeria to strengthen its non-aligned foreign policy while deepening strategic ties with energy-hungry nations. There’s also an opportunity to position itself as a voice for de-escalation and multilateral diplomacy, thereby raising its profile in international peacebuilding circles,” he said.