While the Brics bloc has historically positioned itself as an alternative centre of gravity to Western capitals, the grouping has never been directly confrontational. However, Iran, which joined the bloc in 2023, is openly hostile to America’s global leadership, and the current conflict in the Middle East has put a spotlight on the alliance.
Iran has several reasons for distrusting the West. The 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention led to decades of resource exploitation by the British. Next came Operation Ajax, in which British and American intelligence agencies helped overthrow a democratically elected government to reverse the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry in 1953. The US supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran in the 1980s and has been sanctioning the country for decades.
Nevertheless, the Brics bloc has remained nonaligned and avoided direct involvement in the current conflict. Russia benefits from the disruption, and China would prefer unhindered energy flows, while India has been courting the West. The Brics countries clearly have divergent interests. However, the decision to choose enlargement over the formalisation of the bloc may be one of its greatest strengths, as it maximises the organisation’s flexibility.
The G7 often speaks with one voice, giving the impression of combined strength. But upon closer inspection it has become increasingly obvious that the US and Europe also have divergent interests. Consider recent debates about Ukraine funding, control over Greenland, and government-led censorship of social media. Meanwhile, Trump’s attempts to entice his allies into joining his war against Iran have largely proven fruitless.
In contrast, the Brics acknowledge that major powers are unlikely to be aligned on every issue, favouring pragmatic engagement over unrealistic attempts at uniformity. So while the lack of a united response to the current conflict in the Middle East may make the bloc seem disunited or irrelevant, upon closer inspection, the Brics bloc may be growing stronger.
The rise of Brics
It could even be argued that America’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy actions are a direct response to the rise of Brics. Notable members such as Russia, China and Iran all reject American exceptionalism, and all three perceive the US as a threat, with Washington openly arming Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel with American tax dollars.
Though US President Donald Trump has floated several different reasons for attacking Iran, polls indicate that ordinary Americans are sceptical about the benefits of overseas military entanglements, and much of the media has expressed concern about the lack of clear objectives. That said, some officials have openly admitted a desire to take control of Iran’s oil resources.
China has been the largest buyer of Iranian and Venezuelan oil in recent years, and one cannot dismiss the possibility that the recent attacks on these countries could be linked to the strategic competition between the US and China. If the US were to gain further control over global energy flows, this could put China at a disadvantage in a potential future war over Taiwan.
As such, recent American military adventures could be perceived as an attempt to reaffirm the primacy of the petrodollar in response to the salami-slicing tactics of Brics. However, US munitions stockpiles have already been depleted by the war in Ukraine, resulting in the redeployment of air defence assets from South Korea to the Middle East. This undoubtably strengthens China’s position as the US risks becoming overstretched.
Meanwhile, the economics of attrition warfare could also prove favourable to Iran. Military analysts largely agree that Iran’s increasingly advanced missiles and drones are cheaper to produce compared with the expensive interceptors used to shoot them down, while control over the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran economic leverage over the entire global economy.
At the same time, Russia has emerged as a major beneficiary of the conflict. Not only have weapons systems earmarked for Ukraine been diverted, but higher energy prices resulting from the conflict are a boon for the Kremlin at a time when Russia’s government finances were beginning to come under pressure. A major exporter of oil, gas and fertilisers, Russia could receive a multi-hundred billion dollar windfall from rising prices.
While major Brics energy importers such as India and China face higher costs, China has received Iranian permission for its ships to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a key advantage in a constrained energy market. At the same time, China has also become significantly more self-reliant in energy thanks to its vast supply of renewables and electrified transport.
What about India?
Among the Brics, India is the obvious outlier in the current context, and in the build-up to the war some commentators began questioning New Delhi’s loyalty to the group. Indian oil refineries had reduced purchases of Russian crude to appease Washington, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel just days before the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran.
Other Brics members have certainly been more vocal. Russia and China abstained from a UN security council vote condemning Iran, Indonesia suspended its participation in Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, and South Africa directly criticised the US and Israel for starting the conflict. In contrast, India took days before putting out a statement calling for a return to dialogue.
Nevertheless, behind the scenes the chess pieces started moving. To avoid even higher oil prices, the US temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian crude, which benefited India. At the same time, India began negotiating with Iran for access to the Strait of Hormuz, with ships currently being granted permission to transit on a case-by-case basis.
New Delhi subsequently reached out to Beijing to request the lifting of restrictions on urea exports, a key fertiliser that has been severely affected by war-related trade disruptions. These are all clear signs that Brics co-operation is becoming more important than ever.
Countries such as Iceland and the Netherlands have joined South Africa’s International Court of Justice case against Israel, while Nato states such as Spain and Turkey have condemned US and Israeli attacks on Iran and Lebanon. These developments all illustrate the Brics bloc’s growing influence.
Meanwhile, dissatisfaction with American foreign policy can even be seen in the US, where polling indicates most US voters are opposed to the current conflict, which, unlike the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks clear bipartisan support.
While the US has undertaken controversial military operations in the past, it has never been so flagrant in its disregard for consensus among its own allies or population. The volume of recent sanctions, tariffs and military operations is unprecedented, and many have questioned whether there isn’t a more constructive way forward.
As more and more countries grow disillusioned with American leadership, alternatives such as the Brics bloc could become more influential. The grouping champions national sovereignty and mutually beneficial co-operation without demanding any compliance from its members. This could be the blueprint for the future of international relations.
— Shubitz is an independent Brics analyst
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.