Ruto's Gulf statement raises doubt over Kenya's neutrality and trade

As Iran rained retaliatory missiles across the Gulf following the US-Israel offensive that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President William Ruto issued a statement on March 2 condemning “the strikes on the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain” – every country hit by Iranian fire. What was missing? Any mention of Iran itself. Any mention of the US and Israel, whose attack triggered this regional inferno. Any acknowledgment that Tehran was responding, not initiating.

Within hours, Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Korir Sing’oei was on damage control, clarifying that Kenya remained neutral and was merely opposing the “regionalisation” of the conflict.

The clarification was necessary because the original statement had committed a cardinal sin of Middle East diplomacy: it named the targets of Iranian retaliation without naming the trigger.

The countries named by Ruto—UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain—are not innocent. They host US military bases and take part in operations against Iranian-backed forces.

Iran’s retaliatory strikes targeted these assets, not the nations themselves. Columnist Macharia Gaitho said Ruto was “blaming the victim instead of the source,” and should have called on US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end “unjustifiable attacks on Iranian sovereignty.”

Prof Macharia Munene, a history and international relations expert, said the president was “playing it safe” to stay “in the good books of the US and Israel” and ensure “Trump can count Kenya as a supporter.”

Analysts noted Ruto spoke before the US issued a response, suggesting alignment and raising questions about whether Kenya was pursuing its own foreign policy or echoing Washington.

In Nairobi, Iran’s Ambassador Ali Gholampour faced a delicate moment after the president’s apparent condemnation of Iran’s defensive actions. Choosing diplomacy, he assured journalists that bilateral ties remain intact, while urging Kenya and other UN-member countries to call for de-escalation rather than take sides, noting the UN Charter demands peace, not selective condemnation.

Former US President Barack Obama, who helped negotiate the nuclear deal Trump abandoned, expressed dismay. He warned that abandoning diplomacy undermines Iran’s sovereignty, which comes from its people, not a ruined infrastructure. By contrast, Ruto’s statement, lacking this context, now seemed hollow.

Sudan entanglement

To grasp why this diplomatic misstep matters, look south to Sudan, where war rages and Kenya’s role has left deep wounds. For nearly three years, conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has torn the country apart.

Kenya is widely seen as backing RSF commander Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, alias Hemeti, reinforced by the 2025 announcement of an RSF parallel government in Nairobi. Sudan’s army chief accuses Kenya of violating sovereignty, while US Senator Jim Risch calls for an investigation into Nairobi’s ties to the RSF amid a review of Kenya’s non-NATO ally status.

The UAE is widely cited by UN experts and US lawmakers as the RSF’s main financier and arms supplier, though Abu Dhabi denies it. A February 2026 Reuters investigation reported that Ethiopia hosts a secret RSF training camp funded by the UAE.

Human Rights Watch’s deputy Africa director Laetitia Bader urged Kenya to call out the RSF and name its funders. Instead, the president aligns with those funders’ allies. Critics note the stark contradiction: Kenya condemns Iran for hitting UAE assets while backing a UAE-backed militia accused of atrocities in Sudan.

Trade underscores what Ruto’s statement may have overlooked. In 2024, Kenya exported 13 million kilogrammes of tea to Iran, worth Sh4.26 billion ($33 million), making Iran a top-ten buyer. University of Nairobi economist XN Iraki warned, “If we don’t export tea there, then we are affected.”

Just days before Ruto’s March 2 statement, Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe met Ambassador Gholampour to advance trade talks and prepare the May 2026 Kenya-Iran Joint Cooperation Commission. Now, negotiations over tea and livestock face the shadow of a presidential statement condemning Iran’s defensive actions.

Over 400,000 Kenyans work in the Gulf—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait—sending remittances that cover nearly 40 per cent of Kenya’s trade deficit. Kenya Airways has suspended flights to Dubai and Sharjah. Rising fuel costs push up prices for basic goods. The East African warns that the Strait of Hormuz shutdown would spike grain, fertiliser and fuel costs across Africa, hit remittances and disrupt the Gulf Cooperation Council’s $100 billion investment footprint across the continent.

Former Kenyan UN envoy Martin Kimani has warned that the Horn of Africa remains exposed to external shocks, given its reliance on global supply chains as a net importer.

Kenya’s foreign policy framework, codified in Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2025, balances ties with Israel, solidarity with Palestine and economic partnerships with Iran. It aims to make Kenya a stable regional hub and reliable global partner.

The policy framework

The policy affirms Palestinian self-determination while calling Israel a strategic partner. As National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula once said, “Our friendship with country A is not to the exclusion of country B.”

Ruto’s March 2 statement broke from Kenya’s foreign policy framework. By condemning strikes on Gulf States without context, it abandoned the neutrality enshrined in Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2025.

Dickens Mayaka noted on X that naming Iran’s targets but ignoring its grievance gave the impression Kenya had picked a side.

The Middle East conflict affects global trade: the Strait of Hormuz handles a quarter of seaborne oil and a fifth of Liquefied Natural Gas. Shipping lines like Maersk and CMA CGM have rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, adding 14–25 days and surcharges of $20–$40 per 20-foot container. Peter Tirschwell of S&P Global warned that calmer freight rates and normalised supply chains are now off the table.

Elijah Mbaru, CEO of the Kenya Ship Agents Association, said the escalating conflict is not “geopolitical noise” but rather “a structural shock to global supply chains.”He expects oil prices to increase by nearly 20 per cent, with cascading effects on food, transport and fertiliser costs.

Agayo Ogambi, CEO of the Shippers Council of Eastern Africa, noted that the disruption coincides with the avocado season and will delay exports of the perishable crop. “Freight time will increase as vessels re-route via the Cape of Good Hope.

Cold chain disruptions

The Red Sea, which connects to the Mediterranean, ensures that shipments from Mombasa reach Europe within 18-20 days.

As a result of re-routing, it shall take up to 40-45 days and this will lead to cold chain disruptions, higher rejection rates by buyers and financial losses for exporters,” Ogambi warned.

Fertilizer markets are also exposed. Around 44 per cent of sulfur, 31 per cent of urea, 18 per cent of ammonia and 15 per cent of phosphates – all key fertilizer components – transit the region. Any sustained disruption could compound inflationary pressures in food markets across Africa.

It is against this backdrop of global economic vulnerability that President Ruto’s diplomatic blunder of March 2 must be assessed.

Analysts argue the intervention appeared less a calculated shift in foreign policy than a rushed statement that failed basic diplomatic vetting. It reached the president’s desk, and he signed off – without, it seems, full consideration of the economic exposure Kenya now faces.

The result is a diplomatic complication of Kenya’s own making. The impression left behind is of a government that either does not understand the conflicts it comments on or understands them and chooses alignment over neutrality at moments when neutrality is the only sensible option.

Gaitho placed the misstep within a broader pattern of foreign policy and President Ruto’s own religious contradictions.“The latest unwise intervention is in the same mould. It suggests that Ruto is pursuing policies dictated by his personal ties to Christian religious extremism and American far-right evangelists rather than the Kenyan national interest.”

Gaitho’s reference to “the same mould” speaks to previous instances where the administration’s foreign policy pronouncements have appeared at odds with Kenya’s traditional diplomatic neutrality.

With Israel’s military campaign in Gaza continuing to draw international condemnation – including a genocide case before the International Court of Justice – Ruto’s early statements from State House have been noted by critics as implicitly supportive of positions at variance with the thinking of foreign ministry professionals who advocate for more balanced engagement.