40 Countries Responded to the Iran Strikes. They Described Two Different Wars.

Within 24 hours of the first bombs falling on Tehran, at least 40 governments issued statements. They described two completely different events.

One was a necessary strike against a nuclear threat. The other was an illegal act of aggression. Same bombs. Same craters. Two wars.

The supporters: "Freedom for Iranians"

Trump called it "major combat operations" aimed at "freedom" for the Iranian people. Netanyahu told Iranians to "take this chance" and rise up against their government. He claimed "growing signs" that Khamenei was dead, though he offered no evidence.

Canada backed the U.S. directly. Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada "stands with the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." He called the Islamic Republic "the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East."

Ukraine's Zelenskyy endorsed the strikes in a video address. His reasoning was personal: Iran supplied Russia with over 57,000 Shahed drones used to bomb Ukrainian cities. "The Iranian regime chose to be an accomplice to Putin," he said. For Zelenskyy, bombing Iran is bombing Russia's weapons factory.

Australia's Anthony Albanese said his country "stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression."

The opponents: "Unprovoked and illegal"

Russia called the strikes "a pre-planned and unprovoked act of aggression." Moscow accused Washington and Tel Aviv of falsely hyping nuclear threats to pursue regime change. The foreign ministry warned of "uncontrolled escalation."

China said it was "highly concerned" and demanded an "immediate stop of military actions." State media posted a caricature of Uncle Sam with the caption: "Hegemonism is the only language I know."

Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi called the attacks "wholly unprovoked, illegal, and illegitimate." He wrote on X that Trump had turned "America First into Israel First — which always means America Last."

Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected "the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel" and called it an escalation contributing to "a more uncertain and hostile international order."

The UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Mai Sato, called the strikes "unlawful" — launched without UN authorization.

The fence: Europe's careful choreography

The E3 — France, Germany, and the UK — issued a joint statement that managed to condemn no one and support everyone, simultaneously.

They emphasized they'd "long urged Iran" to end its nuclear program and stop "appalling violence and repression against its own people." They made clear none of their countries participated in the strikes. But they "remained in close contact" with the U.S. and Israel.

Then the pivot: they condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes "in the strongest terms."

Read it again. They didn't condemn the initial attack. They condemned the response. The statement was a masterclass in diplomatic geometry — sympathetic to the attacker's motives, neutral on the attack itself, hostile to the retaliation.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the situation "greatly concerning" and urged "all parties to exercise restraint." Kaja Kallas, the EU's chief diplomat, called it "perilous" but also noted the Iranian regime "has killed thousands."

The subtext: Europe doesn't want this war, but it won't oppose the country that runs NATO.

The caught: Gulf states that didn't choose a side

Here's where it gets truly complicated.

Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all refused to let the U.S. use their airspace or bases for the attack on Iran. They tried to stay neutral.

Iran attacked them anyway.

Missiles hit Al Udeid air base in Qatar — America's largest Middle East installation. A drone struck a tower block in Manama, Bahrain. Kuwait's international airport took a drone hit, injuring workers. Saudi Arabia intercepted attacks on Riyadh. The UAE closed its airspace.

These countries had tried to thread an impossible needle: host U.S. military bases while maintaining relations with Iran. Saturday, that needle snapped.

All six condemned Iran's attacks on their territories. Saudi Arabia threatened consequences. The Gulf Cooperation Council released a joint statement.

None condemned the U.S.-Israeli strikes that provoked the retaliation.

The message was clear: we didn't start this, we don't want this, but Iran just made it personal.

The streets: two protests, opposite meanings

In London, protesters gathered with placards opposing "another endless war." The Answer Coalition and allied groups marched against what they called the Trump administration's "illegal attack." The framing: imperial aggression against a sovereign nation.

In Berlin, Iranian diaspora communities rallied in front of the Brandenburg Gate calling for regime change. They celebrated the strikes. The framing: liberation from four decades of theocratic oppression.

Same day. Same conflict. Two crowds in two European capitals with opposite demands.

The Iranian diaspora reaction split further. Some exiles cheered the destruction of the regime that killed their families. Others worried the bombs would kill the very people they wanted freed. The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) organized rallies; former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed their Berlin gathering by video.

The mediator: Oman's quiet fury

Oman's foreign minister Badr Albusaidi may have been the angriest person in the room, and he barely raised his voice.

Albusaidi had been in Washington on Friday — the day before the strikes — meeting Vice President Vance. He'd been mediating between the U.S. and Iran for months. He told CBS News that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling of nuclear enrichment.

Then the bombs fell.

"I am dismayed," he wrote on X. The strikes "do not serve the interests of the United States," he said, and urged Washington "not to get sucked in further," adding four words that may define the coming weeks: "This is not your war."

His implication was devastating: a deal was within reach. Diplomacy was working. Someone chose bombs instead.

What the split reveals

Map the reactions and a pattern emerges.

Countries with their own authoritarian problems (Russia, China) called it aggression. Countries fighting Russia (Ukraine) called it justice. Countries hosting U.S. bases (Gulf states) condemned only the retaliation. Countries with strong anti-war movements (Spain) called it illegal. Countries in NATO (E3) threaded the needle.

Every government looked at the same craters in Tehran and saw its own interests reflected back.

The UN Security Council called an emergency meeting Saturday afternoon. Britain chairs it this month. No resolution will pass — the U.S. holds veto power.

The International Committee of the Red Cross warned of a "dangerous chain reaction" with "potentially devastating consequences for civilians." That's the closest any institution came to describing what everyone could see: this is now bigger than Iran and Israel.

Lebanon's Prime Minister Nawaf Salam captured the anxiety of every small country nearby: "Lebanon will not accept anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity."

He might as well have been speaking for the entire region.

The two wars

Here's what 24 hours of global reaction tells us.

If you consumed American, Canadian, Australian, or Israeli media on Saturday, you watched a necessary military operation against a nuclear-armed dictatorship that massacred protesters and supplied drones to Russia.

If you consumed Russian, Chinese, Spanish, or much of the Global South's media, you watched two nuclear powers attack a sovereign nation without UN authorization, killing 201 people including 85 in a girls' school.

Both descriptions are factually accurate. Both omit what the other emphasizes.

The bombs were real. The craters are real. The 201 dead are real. But the war those facts describe depends entirely on which capital you're sitting in.

That's not bias. That's geography. And right now, geography is the most dangerous variable on the planet.