Nairobi has no dog in US-Israel attacks on Iran

The war between Tehran, Washington, and Tel Aviv has escalated sharply in 2026, with missile strikes and rising regional tensions dominating headlines. Yet, Kenya has no dog in this fight.

While Nairobi has expressed concern, its diplomatic posture risks being perceived as meddlesome or aligned with external powers, potentially undermining credibility and harming national interests. In the early days of the conflict, President Ruto condemned Iranian retaliatory strikes targeting US and allied military assets in Gulf states. The government warned that the regionalisation of violence threatens international peace and security.

Subsequently, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a phone call with President Ruto. Reports indicate that Rubio commended Kenya for publicly condemning Iranian attacks, framing it as part of a broader diplomatic engagement on Middle East stability. These actions contributed to perceptions that Nairobi was aligning with Washington’s position, although Kenya has no operational involvement in the conflict.

Yet condemnation of attacks does not equate to military engagement. Kenya has not deployed troops, nor does it host military facilities capable of threatening Tehran. Iranian officials, including Ambassador Ali Gholampour in Nairobi, have repeatedly assured that Kenya is outside the range of Iranian missiles, underscoring that Nairobi is not a party to the war.

Iran has consistently framed its actions as lawful self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms that nothing in the Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a UN member.

By targeting US and Israeli military assets in the Gulf, Tehran emphasises that its operations are defensive rather than aggressive, deliberately excluding neutral countries such as Kenya. Understanding this principle is crucial to interpreting Nairobi’s diplomatic reactions and explains why Kenya’s condemnation may appear selective or poorly contextualised.

The conflict between Iran and the US has deep historical roots. Relations deteriorated sharply after the 1953 CIA-backed coup that ousted Prime Minister Mossadegh and the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which established the Islamic Republic. Subsequent events, including the 1979–1981 U.S. embassy hostage crisis, disputes over Iran’s nuclear program, proxy wars, and sanctions, have reinforced mutual suspicion. These historical realities explain Tehran’s emphasis on sovereignty, self-defence, and national dignity in its response.

Even without being a belligerent, Kenya is already feeling the economic ripple effects of a war it has no part in. In 2024, Kenya exported roughly 13 million kilograms of tea to Iran, historically valued in the low tens of millions of dollars before shipments were halted amid diplomatic and logistical strains. Livestock exports, previously worth KSh300 million per week, have declined sharply due to trade disruptions.

Approximately eight million kilograms of tea remain stuck at the Port of Mombasa, resulting in estimated weekly losses of US$8 million for exporters. These figures demonstrate Kenya’s vulnerability to disruptions in distant conflict zones, highlighting the need for policies that prioritise neutrality and safeguard trade relationships.

If Kenya’s diplomatic posture in the Iran conflict invites scrutiny, its behaviour in Sudan is even more problematic. In early 2026, reports alleged that Kenya’s immigration authorities issued passports to members of the RSF, a paramilitary group engaged in violent conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Khartoum condemned the move, recalling ambassadors and banning Kenyan imports.

Kenya stands at a critical diplomatic crossroads. Its economic ties with Iran, including tea, livestock, and investment partnerships, are substantial and vulnerable. Its condemnation of Iranian strikes, though framed as support for international law, risks projecting alignment with Western powers.

Coupled with missteps in Sudan, Nairobi’s actions could reinforce perceptions of meddling rather than measured diplomacy. By adhering to Article 51 of the UN Charter, recognising Iran’s right to self-defence, and prioritising neutrality, trade preservation, and measured commentary, Kenya can protect its credibility, economy, and regional standing.

-Writer comments on topical issues