The escalating cycle of missile exchanges between Iran and Israel has long been viewed through the lens of geopolitical strategy and regional hegemony. However, for those who survived the brutal machinery of the South African apartheid state, the current rhetoric of “existential threats” and “pre-emptive security” carries a hauntingly familiar resonance.
Frank Chikane, a veteran anti-apartheid activist and former South African government minister, believes that the logic currently driving the Middle East toward a broader war mirrors the psychological and political frameworks used by the apartheid regime to justify state violence. By analyzing the current tensions, Chikane suggests that the world is witnessing Frank Chikane on apartheid echoes in the Iran-Israel conflict, where the narrative of a “besieged state” is used to override international law and human rights.
Chikane’s perspective is not merely academic; it is forged from decades of resisting a government that claimed its survival depended on the suppression of others. He argues that when states adopt a mindset of “total security,” they often create the very instability they claim to be preventing, leading to a spiral of escalation that leaves civilians as the primary victims.
The Logic of the ‘Besieged State’
Central to Chikane’s observation is the concept of the “Total Strategy,” a doctrine employed by the South African government under P.W. Botha in the 1970s and 80s. The regime argued that South Africa was facing a “Total Onslaught” from communist forces and internal dissidents, which justified aggressive pre-emptive strikes in neighboring countries and the suspension of civil liberties at home.
Chikane observes a similar pattern in the modern discourse surrounding the Iran-Israel conflict. He points to the way security concerns are framed not as manageable political disputes, but as existential battles for survival. In his view, this framing allows states to bypass the constraints of the United Nations Charter, justifying missile strikes and military incursions as necessary defenses against an imagined or exaggerated total annihilation.
This “security-first” logic, Chikane suggests, creates a dangerous paradox: the more a state attempts to secure itself through overwhelming force and intimidation, the more it alienates its neighbors and fuels the grievances that lead to further conflict. He notes that the apartheid government’s attempts to “secure” the region through destabilization only accelerated its own eventual collapse.
Missiles and the Erosion of Diplomacy
The recent escalation, marked by the Iranian missile barrage on October 1, 2024, and subsequent Israeli responses, represents a shift from “shadow war” to direct confrontation. While military analysts focus on interceptor rates and payload capacities, Chikane focuses on the memory of how such escalations dehumanize the “enemy” to make violence palatable to the public.
He argues that the reliance on missile diplomacy—where power is measured by the ability to strike from a distance—strips away the human element of conflict. For Chikane, the distance provided by a missile is not just physical, but moral. It allows leaders to engage in a high-stakes game of deterrence without facing the immediate, visceral reality of the wreckage they leave behind.
The danger, according to Chikane, is that this cycle creates a permanent state of emergency. Under apartheid, the “state of emergency” became a permanent tool of governance. He fears that if the Middle East remains in a perpetual state of “imminent threat,” the possibility of a negotiated, sustainable peace becomes secondary to the immediate goal of military dominance.
Comparative Frameworks of Conflict
To understand the parallels Chikane draws, it is helpful to look at how “security narratives” have been used historically to justify exceptionalism in international law.
| Feature | Apartheid ‘Total Strategy’ | Modern ‘Existential’ Narratives |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Justification | Defense against ‘Total Onslaught’ | Prevention of existential threat/nuclear proliferation |
| Tactical Approach | Pre-emptive strikes in neighboring states | Targeted strikes and missile exchanges |
| Legal Stance | Domestic law over international norms | Security exceptions to international law |
| Outcome | Increased regional instability and isolation | Risk of regional war and civilian casualties |
The Path Toward Moral Clarity
For Chikane, the solution does not lie in a better missile defense system, but in a return to moral clarity and the rigorous application of international law. He emphasizes that no state, regardless of its security concerns, should be allowed to operate above the law. The International Court of Justice and other global bodies must be empowered to hold all actors accountable, regardless of their strategic importance to global powers.
He believes that the only way to break the cycle of “apartheid echoes” is to shift the narrative from one of survival to one of coexistence. This requires acknowledging the legitimate fears and aspirations of all parties involved—a step that the apartheid regime refused to seize until it was forced to by the sheer will of the people and international pressure.
Chikane’s warning is clear: when the language of “security” replaces the language of “human rights,” the result is almost always a tragedy. He urges the international community to move beyond the binary of choosing a side in the Iran-Israel conflict and instead champion a framework where the security of one state is not predicated on the insecurity or oppression of another.
What Lies Ahead
The trajectory of the conflict remains volatile. The international community is currently monitoring the implementation of ceasefire negotiations in Gaza and Lebanon, which many diplomats believe are the key to lowering the temperature between Tehran and Jerusalem. The next critical checkpoint will be the upcoming series of diplomatic summits aimed at preventing a full-scale regional war, where the effectiveness of traditional diplomacy will be tested against the “security-first” logic Chikane warns against.
We invite you to share your thoughts on this perspective in the comments below. Do you believe historical parallels can help us navigate modern conflicts, or are today’s geopolitical realities fundamentally different?
