The repercussions of the Iran war are already being felt around the world, and will continue to do so for months and years to come. But it is surely incumbent on us all to try to reduce the risk of contagion, of the conflict deepening divides or disrupting relations that had previously been stable.
There has been one recent example of this in my part of the world, South-East Asia. Last week, Singaporean Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan answered a question in Parliament about negotiating toll rates with Iran for shipping to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Mr Balakrishnan said that “as a matter of principle” he would not do so.
“There is a right of transit passage. It is not a privilege to be granted by the bordering state, it’s not a licence to be supplicated for, it is not a toll to be paid,” he said. Freedom of navigation is “a right”, he added, and negotiating “would be implicitly eroding this legal principle”.
It may have been a two-minute statement to the Singapore legislature, but it attracted a lot of attention. US ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz reposted a video of Mr Balakrishnan on X, with the comment: “Strong, principled statement from Singapore on its refusal to cut ‘side deals’ w Iran.” So did former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who wrote: “I’ve known the Singaporean Foreign Minister for years. This principled statement is as solid as he is. Well done in this critical moment.”
But Nurul Izzah Anwar, daughter of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of neighbouring Malaysia, took Mr Balakrishnan’s words as a criticism of her father, who had secured safe passage for seven Malaysia-bound tankers after high-level discussions with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian last month. “Malaysia will not be lectured on the merits of engagement,” she wrote in a strongly worded statement that was posted on the website of PKR, the party her father leads and of which she is deputy president.
“It is difficult to ignore the undertones in Dr Balakrishnan’s position. His posture appears less about neutrality and more about echoing the strategic preferences of external powers, whose interests do not always align with those of our region. Such alignment risks eroding Asean’s long-held commitment to independent, balanced diplomacy.” His remarks, she wrote, were “both revealing and regrettable”, and he “should also recognise that quiet acquiescence to great power narratives and genocidal entities is not the same as principled neutrality.”
There is a background to all this. Singapore borders two significantly larger Muslim-majority countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, and some in the region suspect the city-state of being overly influenced by America and accuse it of being far too close to Israel. Resurfaced pictures of Mr Balakrishnan, accompanied by a rabbi, appearing to pray while touching the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem during a 2022 visit, have not helped.
The furore grew so heated that one Singaporean politician, Irene Ng Berry, wrote on Facebook: “I think the world has enough problems right now and we don’t need to create new ones. Can people on both sides of the Causeway please cool it.”
Prime Minister Anwar attempted to draw a line under the issue, saying about Singapore’s stance: “It is their view and their business. Ours is to maintain good relations.” But the point is that in more normal times, this argument – which saw plenty of people trade very sharp remarks online and aroused bitter feelings between the two countries – simply would not have arisen.
Evelyn Lau’s perceptive column in these pages, “Why it’s OK to not feel like yourself during uncertain times”, may be applicable at the state, as well as the personal, level. When people – and that includes politicians – are fearful and stressed, it’s easier to snap. Debates about the exact applicability of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, especially when relevant parties haven’t ratified it, which is the case for both Iran and the US, used to be confined to foreign policy wonks and academics. Now the question can set off an ugly public debate.
It’s hard to keep level-headed when prominent commentators like Tucker Carlson warn that we may be at risk of a nuclear conflagration, but “cool it” is advice that US President Donald Trump would have been wise to have taken when Pope Leo denounced war, called for peace and said Mr Trump’s threat to destroy Iran were “unacceptable”. It’s not unusual for popes to urge dialogue and say that “there’s a better way than war”. The current pontiff has generally kept criticisms – which may well have been aimed at the Trump administration – oblique. The US President could have ignored them.
Instead, Mr Trump’s crude response has divided American conservatives, caused deep hurt and anger among the globe’s 1.4 billion Catholics and strained relations with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Previously one of Mr Trump’s most steadfast allies, Ms Meloni probably felt she had little choice but to defend Pope Leo and – for once – publicly denounce the US President. Another totally unnecessary row.
Plenty of the knock-on effects of this war, from disruption to travel and tourism, to surges in the prices and shortages of fuel, fertiliser and food, are unavoidable. Yes, the world is on edge and the speed with which we can react and communicate makes it all too easy for heat-of-the-moment responses to cause fresh squabbles and outrage. More are sure to come as the spillover consequences hit harder. That doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn’t try to limit them.
We need to learn to pause, and maybe ask ourselves: if we weren’t having these vicious arguments before the war, would our calmer selves really be having them now?
