“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children“—  Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A complex and peculiar crisis is facing the international community today. This is the erosion of ethical norms in countries that should provide leadership to the world through example. For norms to retain their authority, they must constrain both the powerful and the weak in situations of extreme divergence and aggravated tension capable of leading to armed conflict.

The sanctity of treaties, the solemnity of diplomatic negotiations, the faithful adherence to agreements, the inviolability of national leaders, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, respect for cultures and religious beliefs, the sanctity of life and property, protection of non-combatants during conflict, respect for national borders, and a host of other principles, have underpinned the global order for nearly a century. These have now been unraveled by America and Israel. 

The recent unprovoked perfidious American and Israeli military strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran have reopened a question that has haunted international politics since the end of the Cold War: Do Western values still retain moral authority, or have they dissolved into the language of convenience? This is not merely a matter of geopolitics but a matter of legitimacy. For decades, the West has presented itself not only as a centre of power but as the custodian of a normative order built on rules, institutions and law.

The architecture of that order rests upon the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva, Hague and Vienna Conventions, the International Court of Justice, and a moral vocabulary that prizes sovereignty, rule of law, restraint in the use of force, and the protection of civilians. Yet, time and again, this normative architecture with its supporting frameworks have been tested and very nearly dismantled by the very powers that constructed them, when circumstances required their faithful observance and careful preservation.

The tension and dichotomy between principle and power always become discernible in moments of crisis and uncertainty. The foundational claim of the post-1945 order is that force may only be used in self-defence or with authorisation from the United Nations Security Council. This principle was meant to prevent a return to the era of gunboat diplomacy in which powerful states reshaped borders and regimes by unilateral action. When major military action is undertaken without broad multilateral backing, the question arises: are the rules universal, or discretionary?

Western governments often argue that preemptive or preventive action is necessary in the face of emerging threats. Critics counter that such reasoning, if unbounded, risks destroying the very norms that distinguish lawful defence from strategic aggression. In the case of Iran, the issue is not whether that country is a liberal democracy or if its regional conduct has been destabilising. The issue is whether the principles that the West claims as universal apply consistently in all situations, including when the West itself acts. This consistency in application of supposedly universal principles makes the difference between hypocrisy and faithfulness.

Some observers argue that Western values have collapsed into open realpolitik with their retreat from the espousal of moral values to the elevation of raw power. From Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011, and now to Iran, they see a pattern in which human rights rhetoric masks strategic calculation. In this view, the “rules-based order” functions less as a binding code and more as an instrument of influence and coercion. But this interpretation may be incomplete in itself. It was assumed up to a point, that unlike other systems, Western societies are internally pluralistic where law courts can challenge executive authority, legislatures debate war powers and media and civil society interrogate official narratives.

The deeper question is whether these self-corrective mechanisms are strong enough to prevent the normalisation of exceptionalism. We have seen how Western law courts have failed to rein in their governments. We have witnessed how their parliaments aided and abetted wars. We saw how their civil societies could not rally to prevent genocide and wholesale destruction in Gaza. We have seen how their media reported wars such as in Gaza uncritically and often in ways that justified aggression.

The view from the Global South – much of Africa, Asia and Latin America, is that the use of unilateral force has now become the substitute for diplomacy in the West. As post-colonial states, many of the countries of the Global South are weary of the violations of territorial sovereignty. Their collective memory of external interventions that are often justified in civilisational or moral language still shapes their perceptions of global affairs.

For the Global South, the concern is less about ideological alignment with Tehran and more about precedent. If preventive force becomes normalised among great powers, the stability of the international system becomes conditional on power rather than law. For these countries also, this reinforces the wisdom of resuscitating the Non-Alignment Principle once again as the bedrock of international engagement and preservation of sovereignty while navigating a world increasingly defined by rivalry rather than consensus.

In the wake of the illegal unconscionable attacks against Iran by Israel and America, it is valid to ask – what now remans of Western values? They may have not evaporated outright, but their luster has faded and their invocation by these countries will forever ring hollow and empty of meaning. Even as Western governments continue to frame their actions within the language of international law, the rest of the world will see through that as nothing but a deceptive maneuver that hides the true intent to diverge from the pursuit of principles to that of interests only.

They may argue that their institutions are strong and their internal accountability remains robust relative to most regions of the world. But this is only as far as processes are entailed whereas when policy is at stake all the alleged restraints will be thrown to the wind as we have seen unfolding in places like Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. Most importantly, the Western moral vocabulary of human rights and civilian protection is now meaningless, since these terms have been applied selectively and in degrees depending on which races or people are at the receiving end of their injustice.

The outcomes of the war against Iran may not be as clear as crystal for now, but what is clear as daylight is that around the world, confidence in Western values and their universality has been irrecoverably eroded. This is because perception shapes legitimacy, and legitimacy shapes influence. Our perception is that these values are applied by the West in ways that are less transparent and more subtle and devious when it involves people from other parts of the world.

The selectivity and hierarchical application of these values will ultimately undermine the post-World War II global order and lead to the search for alternative arrangements. The search for multi-polarity will accelerate, not merely as a balance-of-power phenomenon, but as a search for normative alternatives. Regional institutions may gain renewed emphasis. Middle powers will hedge more aggressively. Trust in global governance mechanisms will weaken. 

History shows that empires decline not when they wield force, but when their moral narrative loses coherence. The West’s greatest asset has never been power alone. It has been the belief however imperfectly realised, that its power operates within a framework of law. With Iran and Gaza, that belief has been fractured, its influence has been dismantled and its relevance has been reduced to nothing.

It is true that international politics has never been free of hypocrisy. States pursue interests mainly and power remains decisive. But it would be equally mistaken to dismiss norms as irrelevant. The twentieth century’s most catastrophic wars taught humanity that unrestrained power invites systemic collapse and unparalleled catastrophe. The rehabilitation of Western values if at all possible after the thoughtless actions against Iran, will depend less on rhetoric and more on good faith and consistency. 

Western countries must now clearly tell the world: Are the ideas of sovereignty and non-aggression the principles that bind all without exception? Are civilian lives equally sacred regardless of geography or race? Does international law restrain the strong as well as the weak? These are not abstract questions. They are the measure of moral credibility.

For Nigeria, this moment demands sobriety rather than passion. The reported signing of a security pact with Israel at this moment of danger and depravity is to say the least, an ill considered move. Our foreign policy must be anchored in principle and national interest alike. We must defend sovereignty universally, oppose destabilising interventions wherever they occur, avoid duplicity and advocate diplomacy as the first recourse of states.

At the same time, we must avoid romanticising any global power Western or otherwise. Our policy of strategic autonomy requires intellectual clarity and moral balance. The world is entering a period of heightened tension, great-power rivalry and institutional strain. We must be able to discern what is right from what is wrong.

Whether Western values endure will depend not on proclamations, but on practice. The ultimate question is not whether the West retains power.

The question is whether it retains the moral coherence that once gave that power global legitimacy. History will judge accordingly. But already, the verdict is clear. With Iran, the West has crossed the moral boundary of legitimacy and therefore, it can no longer claim superiority of values over others.