Members of Iranian security forces stand guard on a street next to a billboard of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on March 2, 2026. [AFP]
The escalating conflict in Iran has once again brought the Middle East to the brink of wider regional war. Coordinated military strikes by the United States (US) and Israel have targeted Iran, resulting in the murder, this past weekend, of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. America, in justifying its interference in Iran, has described its attacks as pre-emptive. Iranian forces have responded with waves of missiles and drones aimed at Israeli positions and US military assets across the Gulf, including in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The exchanges have caused heightened fears of a protracted confrontation that could engulf neighbouring states, and aroused suspicion over the intentions of the United States and Israel.
There is no denying that Iran has for decades been under a repressive regime. Most recently, protests have led to the killing by the government of thousands of protesters. Contrast this with Cuba, that faced similar Western-induced protests five years ago, and yet no deaths were recorded in the curtailing of the protests. In Iran, too, journalists and opposition figures have often been intimidated and imprisoned. These realities have generated deep frustration within segments of the Iranian society and sustained criticism abroad. Yet acknowledging repression does not automatically justify foreign invasion or externally imposed regime change. The moral and legal question remains whether outside powers possess the authority to determine who governs another sovereign nation.
Modern history offers sobering lessons about the consequences of such interventions. In Iraq, the 2003 US-led invasion removed Saddam Hussein from power under the premise of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and fostering democracy. The weapons were never found, and the aftermath was marked by the rise of extremist movements. Institutions collapsed faster than they could be rebuilt, creating a power vacuum that fueled instability for years. Although elections were eventually held, the social and political fragmentation unleashed by the invasion reshaped Iraqi society in ways that continue to reverberate. The human cost was staggering, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced.
A similar pattern emerged in Afghanistan. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Western forces intervened to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power. What began as a targeted counterterrorism mission evolved into a two-decade purported nation-building effort. Despite enormous financial expenditure and military commitment, the political order constructed under foreign supervision proved fragile. When international troops withdrew, the Taliban rapidly regained control; if anything, it could be argued that the US, after exit, handed power back to the Taliban, raising questions on what the point of the entire military operation really was.
In Libya, Western intervention during the 2011 uprising against Muammar Gaddafi was framed as a humanitarian necessity. Airstrikes and support for rebel factions contributed to the collapse of the regime, but no cohesive plan for post-conflict governance followed. Competing militias and rival political factions vied for control, plunging the country into years of fragmentation and intermittent civil war. Rather than transitioning smoothly to democratic governance, Libya became a patchwork of power centres influenced by external actors.
The civil war in Syria further illustrates the risks of external interference. What began as protests against President Bashar al-Assad evolved into a devastating multi-sided conflict involving regional and global powers. Foreign air campaigns, funding for armed groups, and proxy dynamics prolonged the war. Entire cities were reduced to rubble, hundreds of thousands perished, and millions became refugees. While internal grievances ignited the conflict, international involvement intensified and extended it.
In all of these scenarios, it cannot be disputed that the populations of the invaded nations were suffering under authoritarian regimes. The overthrown leaders had taken their citizens through years of hardship, and some citizens were working hard to bring about regime change in the best way they knew how. It’s under such circumstances, the US, sometimes through her proxy Israel, steps in to quicken the process. That may seem benevolent, but history shows that destabilises the countries. The reasons behind the US invasions are never in the best interests of the people.
Ms Njahira is an international lawyer