How Trump’s war with Iran is alienating the Global South

Roughly three weeks after the U.S. and Israel initiated their offensive against Iran, the campaign is already being viewed as a historic pivot, one that may be remembered for having driven the world in a dangerously wrong direction with alarming speed.

The reason is not simply that the conflict risks sinking into a quagmire, spreading turmoil across borders. More troubling is the growing fear that anger and distrust toward Western democracies are deepening among the emerging and developing nations collectively known as the Global South — to a point that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to repair.

From March 5 to March 7, the Raisina Dialogue, India’s leading annual conference on security and geopolitical affairs, brought together in New Delhi dignitaries and experts from about 110 countries, including Japan, the U.S., European nations and emerging economies.

While criticism against the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump was evident during formal sessions, remarks made in informal conversations — including during coffee breaks — were noticeably harsher than I had anticipated. This deteriorating sentiment toward Washington is largely driven by its continued use of military force in South America and the Middle East, often with little regard for international law and established rules.

Resentment is also mounting against U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. Even though some European countries have begun to distance themselves from Trump’s war by refusing requests, such as naval deployments to the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. allies are still failing to openly denounce Washington’s military actions, which are widely seen as being at odds with international norms.

Politicians and pundits from the Global South have expressed profound dissatisfaction with what they perceive as the selective application of rules by U.S. allies. They contend that wealthy nations, which routinely lecture emerging economies on international law and human rights, are now showing striking leniency toward the Trump administration’s apparent violations of those very standards.

It would be one thing if this backlash remained purely emotional. More concerning, however, is the growing sign that some countries in the Global South are now willing to break away from the West-led order established after World War II.

At the forum, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar spoke with unusual bluntness about the future.

“Let’s be honest. Whose order was it? This was the order by the West, for the West and from the West,” Jaishankar said. “[Those] 70 years [of postwar order-building] is 1% of Indian history. Why would it last? Life moves on.”

The trend of emerging nations challenging the established order is not new. For years, they have called for reforms to international institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, seeking a more equitable distribution of influence and leadership.

What is different now is the depth of the resentment. It is driven by the belief that the U.S., widely seen as flouting international law, and the other Western nations, which have failed to restrain it, possess less legitimacy to lead the global order.

In January, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva condemned the U.S. attack on Venezuela, writing on X that “attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos and instability.”

Similarly, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa criticized the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran in a statement, calling on “all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to act in a manner consistent with international law, international humanitarian law and the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

That said, major Global South countries do not yet appear to have either the resolve or a concrete vision to responsibly build a new order. But their concerns cannot be dismissed as mere outbursts. They point to a deeper question: How can international law be upheld if even the U.S. is seen as violating it with such indifference?

If tensions between the West and the Global South continue to deepen, managing the international political system will become even more difficult. Efforts to address global challenges, from climate change to energy and food security, are also likely to fall further behind.

During the Raisina Dialogue, another troubling trend came into view. In private conversations with participants from emerging nations in Asia and the Middle East about the direction of world affairs, I found the sense of crisis ran far deeper than I had imagined.

“With heavy attacks on Iran ongoing, religious solidarity could fuel stronger anti-American sentiment even in Asian countries with large Muslim populations,” said Dino Patti Djalal, former Indonesian ambassador to America. “Such a trend risks deepening divisions within Asia.”

Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, have large Muslim populations. If the U.S.-Israeli military confrontation with Iran becomes protracted and tensions between the Islamic world and the West continue to intensify, the global environment could become significantly more dangerous.

I also heard some participants voice alarm over the possibility that the U.S. administration’s military actions could gather momentum across multiple regions, heightening fears of a potential World War III or even nuclear conflict.

“Following the detention of Venezuela’s president, the United States has pressed ahead in Iran with attacks aimed at killing its leadership and triggering regime collapse,” said Manish Chand, founder and CEO of the Indian think tank Centre for Global India Insights. “It has become increasingly unclear where Washington’s red lines — the boundaries that must not be crossed — actually lie.

“As conflicts intensify in the Middle East and elsewhere, there is also a growing risk that they could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon may not be used in this war, but a nuclear strike may be resorted to in the near future, in a similar situation.”

Djalal also echoed concerns about the possible use of nuclear weapons. “Should President Trump’s military operations continue, conflicts may escalate in various regions, increasing the risk of nuclear confrontation,” he said.

In reality, America possesses conventional military capabilities that far exceed those of most other nations, making it difficult to imagine a situation in which it would resort to nuclear weapons in a regional conflict.

Even so, it would be risky to underestimate the growing alarm among emerging nations over the widening range of war. If distrust of Washington reaches a breaking point, more countries may deepen security ties with China. Some may even begin seeking a nuclear deterrent of their own.

In September, Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense pact with Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state. Some experts see potential for future nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

Western nations have long sought the cooperation of the Global South in responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But they now face a critical test of credibility. The Global South is watching closely to see whether the West can restrain the Trump administration, holding it to the same standards of international responsibility it has demanded of others.