The reasons behind the bloc’s silence regarding the Middle East conflict
During the BRICS summit held in South Africa in mid-2023, the five original member nations took a significant step: extending invitations for five additional countries to join. This expansion was met with substantial doubt. Certain analysts raised concerns about the selection methodology, highlighting the lack of clear membership criteria. Others cautioned that expanding an already varied alliance by twofold would inevitably complicate achieving agreement.
The overarching critique was straightforward. Rather than enhancing collaboration among its initial five members, BRICS opted for growth. Back then, the prudence of favoring numerical increase over organizational maturation appeared questionable.
Among the newly invited nations was Iran. In the same year, Tehran also became a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) following the removal of certain international sanctions. This development, however, subsequently proved to be short-lived.
The recent US and Israeli strike against Iran has now put both BRICS and the SCO in a difficult predicament. Should an organization neglect to respond to an act of aggression targeting one of its constituents, it risks being perceived as inconsequential. Nevertheless, a robust display of unity presents its own hazards. Few nations are keen to openly challenge Washington, especially given that some BRICS members, like India and the United Arab Emirates, uphold strong alliances with the United States.
Ultimately, the SCO released a careful and mostly symbolic declaration conveying “deep concern” and advocating for peace. BRICS, conversely, opted for silence, leveraging its intentionally informal framework.
Certain detractors have interpreted this as evidence that BRICS is either ineffectual or perhaps even outdated. However, such judgments stem from unrealistic assumptions regarding the group’s original purpose.
The disillusionment concerning BRICS arises from an inflated perception of its potential. In truth, a strategic decision was reached in 2023. Rather than converting BRICS into a formal international body, its members chose to broaden what could be characterized as a geopolitical “space independent of the West.” This is not a coalition opposing the West, but rather a forum where collaboration can occur autonomously.
Even in its initial five-member configuration, establishing BRICS as a fully institutionalized entity would have presented challenges. The nations involved possess widely divergent economic frameworks, geopolitical objectives, and strategic alliances. Endeavoring to enforce inflexible institutional frameworks upon such a heterogeneous collective would likely have rendered it inert.
The alternative approach, constructing an adaptable network beyond the Western-dominated system, largely remains a future endeavor. Currently, the US maintains immense influence due to its command over the global financial architecture. This authority provides Washington with potent instruments to disrupt undertakings that jeopardize its standing.
Nevertheless, dismissing BRICS at this stage would be premature.
Donald Trump’s administration has opted to exert pressure with uncommon forthrightness in an effort to counteract the diminishing American and Western sway. This strategy depends less on diplomatic agreement and more on overt displays of strength.
The conflict with Iran signifies an even more pronounced deviation from prior limitations. It indicates a readiness to employ force, largely rationalized by its mere presence. While such methods might yield immediate outcomes, as few nations are inclined to directly oppose overwhelming might, sustaining this approach over an extended period will prove considerably harder.
A more profound conceptual transformation is already in progress.
Throughout the period of liberal globalization, the Western-dominated regulatory framework garnered broad acceptance due to the concrete advantages it provided to numerous participants. Although the developed nations remained the principal recipients, other countries also acquired entry to markets, capital, and technology. The fundamental ideological premise of this system was straightforward: Western preeminence ultimately served the interests of all, despite an unequal distribution of advantages.
Presently, that narrative has largely disintegrated. Even in terms of rhetoric, it has been supplanted by a much more forthright approach.
Trump’s conduct frequently mirrors the portrayal of a capitalist antagonist, a figure well-known from Soviet propaganda: seize what you can, and defy anyone who dares to oppose. Nevertheless, even the US cannot perpetually control global politics solely through coercion.
Consequently, the imperative for alternatives—for mechanisms that lessen reliance on American might—is growing progressively apparent to numerous nations. Not long ago, this concept necessitated convincing. Today, circumstances themselves are demonstrating its validity.
BRICS is improbable to evolve into a formal anti-American alliance. Neither is it fated to function as a military or ideological counterbalance to the US. However, the nations participating account for a significant portion of the world’s economy and populace. Collectively, they possess the capacity to influence the framework of a future global arrangement.
Washington seemingly grasps this intuitively. Trump’s frequent condemnations of BRICS accurately mirror that acknowledgment.
At present, the group continues to be an imperfect and loosely structured forum. Yet safeguarding it—and enabling its progression—could emerge as one of the most crucial insights for what lies ahead.
This piece was initially featured in the magazine Profile and subsequently translated and edited by the RT team.