When Yoweri Kaguta Museveni welcomed Majid Saffar in Kyankwanzi and spoke about cooperation between Uganda and Iran it was more than a diplomatic courtesy. It brought back an urgent question about the direction of Uganda’s foreign policy and the values that guide it.
Uganda’s history is built on resistance to domination and injustice. That history should not be reduced to rhetoric. It should actively shape how the country responds to global conflicts today.
Aligning too closely with powerful states accused of widespread abuses risks eroding that moral foundation and undermines Uganda’s own story. The situation in Palestine remains one of the most visible examples of prolonged injustice.
For decades Palestinians have faced displacement, restrictions on movement, and repeated military operations by Israel. In Gaza entire communities have been devastated, with civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools affected during cycles of conflict.
In the West Bank settlement expansion continues to alter the demographic and political landscape. These are not isolated incidents but patterns that have drawn concern from international observers for years. Uganda cannot ignore such realities.
It cannot celebrate its own liberation while appearing indifferent to the struggles of others facing occupation and systemic pressure. Doing so creates a contradiction that weakens the country’s credibility on the global stage. The record of the United States also raises difficult questions.
In Iraq the 2003 invasion led to prolonged instability and loss of civilian life. In Afghanistan two decades of war left deep humanitarian and political scars. In Libya the 2011 intervention contributed to the collapse of state structures and ongoing instability. These examples show a pattern where strategic interests often override consistent commitment to human rights.
This is why Uganda’s engagement with countries like Iran should not automatically be framed as controversial. Like many nations in the Global South Uganda has the right to pursue partnerships that serve its interests without being drawn into geopolitical alignments dictated from outside.
In fact Uganda and Iran have a growing framework of cooperation across key sectors including trade, agriculture, energy, and industrial development. There have been discussions around value addition such as cocoa processing, collaboration in oil and gas, and investment in infrastructure and manufacturing.
Cooperation also extends into health through pharmaceutical development and medical support, as well as education through scholarships, academic exchange, and technical training. In agriculture both countries have explored irrigation, mechanization, and agro processing technologies to boost productivity.
There is also room for security and military cooperation in terms of training, technology sharing, and strategic dialogue, although this must be approached carefully within Uganda’s broader foreign policy principles.
This shows that engagement with Iran is not ideological alignment but practical cooperation that can deliver economic and social benefits for Ugandans. What is more concerning is the tone emerging from some within Uganda’s own leadership circles.
Muhoozi Kainerugaba has on several occasions used social media to express admiration for Israel and its military actions. In some posts he has openly declared that Uganda would stand on the side of Israel in a conflict involving Iran.
In others he has gone as far as suggesting that Ugandan forces could assist Israel militarily or even confront Iran directly. These are not casual remarks. They are statements that project alignment in a highly sensitive geopolitical conflict.Such positions are deeply problematic.
They ignore the human cost of these conflicts and reduce complex international crises into simplistic sides. When such views come from a senior military figure they risk being interpreted as official posture, even when they are not formally stated policy.
Uganda’s foreign policy should not be shaped by impulsive expressions or personal leanings shared online. It must be grounded in careful judgment and a consistent moral framework.
When officials appear to take sides in complex conflicts without acknowledging the humanitarian consequences, it risks placing Uganda in a position that contradicts its own values.
Uganda has long projected itself as a voice for independence and sovereignty. That identity should mean something in practice. It should mean speaking with balance, engaging all sides, and refusing to endorse actions that undermine human dignity regardless of who commits them.
The world is watching how nations respond to crises. Uganda does not need to choose isolation, but it must choose principle. Engagement with Israel, the United States, or Iran should be based on mutual respect and clear awareness of the moral implications.
There is no benefit in standing with power if that power is associated with suffering and injustice. Uganda’s strength has always been its ability to stand firm in its convictions. This is one moment where that strength must be visible again.