Iran, BRICS, and the Dangers of Strategic Patience

Multipolarity must arm itself

The recent – and certainly not last – massive and unambiguously criminal assaults by the US-Israel complex on Iran has produced much commentary, in good as well as bad faith (that is, propaganda). The latter mainly consists of absurd attempts to pass it off as legal – as shameless NATO Secretary General Mark “Says Daddy” Rutte, for instance, had the gall to claim – or so necessary that legality doesn’t matter – German “think” tank “expert” and decorative TV studio element Christian Mölling, for instance – or somehow both (Western propagandists aren’t good at consistency since it requires logical thinking). These narratives are so obviously motivated and dishonest that they don’t deserve serious attention, only dismay and dismissal. Consider that done.

Regarding analyses, comments, and interpretations that may be correct or misleading but at least merit attention, these have clustered around a few questions, such as: What was the precise nature of the obvious collusion between the US and Israel? What aims have been in play, “merely” (for want of better terms) compulsory and illegal “de-nuclearization,” regime change, or both? By the standards of these two aggressors, how effective were their attacks: Has the Iranian nuclear program, for instance, suffered a temporary setback – if so, for how long: months, years? – or a crippling blow? What do we know about how Iran – as a state and a society – has responded to these attacks? When will Israel and the US attack again? And so on.

Yet there is one issue that seems to receive insufficient scrutiny, notwithstanding that it is second to none in terms of global significance: How will BRICS be affected by these attacks? In particular, what kind of challenges do they pose for the association and its goals? Finally, how should BRICS respond in the mid-to-long term, and, at least as importantly, what mistakes must BRICS avoid?

The shortest answer to the last question is the best starting-point to answer the others. What BRICS must avoid at all costs because it poses an existential danger to it is what Iran has done for more than two decades: BRICS must not adopt – deliberately or de facto, by negligence – a policy of “strategic patience.” Here is why:

Iran, obviously, is a BRICS member state (since January 2024), one of currently ten (the others are, in alphabetical order, Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, the UAE). It also has a Strategic Partnership agreement with one of the most powerful as well as founding members of the group, namely Russia (concluded in January 2025) and a significant relationship with another one, China. In addition, it is fair to say that due to its location, its material, territorial, technological, and intellectual resources, and its demographic heft (c. 90 million inhabitants), Iran is a weighty member of the association. Finally, Tehran and its military-industrial complex have played a very important role in supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine and, indirectly, the West.

Hence, what we have just seen is an unambiguously criminal (under UN Charter Article 2(4) and Article 51), revoltingly devious (as started during ongoing negotiations and targeting the negotiators, too) and extremely brutal attack on a sovereign nation which is a BRICS member. The assault also included a terroristic subversion and assassination campaign in classical Israeli style, murdering its victims (military and civilian) as well as other civilians; a deliberate attempt (with direct participation by US president Donald Trump) to panic Tehran, a city of, at least, almost 17 million (metropolitan area); and, last but not least, criminal – as Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei has pointed out correctly – attacks on nuclear installations.

This assault was carried out – mainly – by two states that are not BRICS members (and unlikely to join, to say the least), one of which, the US, is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, just like Russia and China. At the same time, many other non-BRICS states made a point of either loudly, even crassly siding with the attackers (Germany, for instance) or offering, at most, some token criticism, while also – and unfairly - criticizing Iran (France, for instance).

Yet these minor rhetorical differences did not make a real difference: The common denominator for Western/Northern bystanders – very much including those who have participated in negotiations and agreements on the nuclear issue – was to abandon Iran to whatever Israel and the US pleased to do and to, for good measure, blame Iran for, in essence, being attacked.

There was, in other words, an obvious element here of BRICS against non-BRICS. Non-BRICS countries committed the aggression against Iran, a BRICS member; other non-BRICS countries facilitated that aggression, whether crudely, in the Berlin way, or slickly, in the Paris manner.

What was the response from BRICS? BRICS as a group – and I am writing this without irony – only protested and, moreover, did so in a signally restrained manner. Its declaration, issued on 24 June by Brazil as currently holding the BRICS presidency, expressed “grave concern” and was unambiguous about the fact that the attack on Iran was illegal. It also called for de-escalation and negotiations among “all parties” to the conflict. But it refrained from even naming the aggressors, Israel and the USA.

That was not even the language of a forceful if merely verbal intervention. Instead, it was what you get when a text has to be written by committee and its signatories can only agree on the least common denominator. From Iran’s perspective, such a declaration cannot have been encouraging.

Don’t get me wrong: This is not an angry complaint that BRICS has not joined the fight guns blazing. BRICS is an impressive and growing association, as even skeptics acknowledge: Conservative assessments show that BRICS now represents almost half (45%) of the world’s population, 30% of its oil production, and over 35% of global GDP (in PPP, that is, fairly realistic terms). In short, BRICS already is an economic and demographic giant, surpassing Global North clubs such as the G7. And BRICS has only just started.

But BRICS was not designed as a military alliance as a whole, and, perhaps more importantly, its most powerful members (Russia and China) taken separately simply do not currently have the military means that would have been needed for a straightforward military intervention in defense of Iran and, thus, international law, too. That is just not (yet) the reality of power in this world.

Regarding the relationship specifically between Russia and Iran, Russia has been explicit about condemning the attack. But some Western mainstream media have been crowing about how Moscow, so they claim, was not doing much for its strategic partner despite Iran’s important deliveries to Russia during the ongoing Ukraine War. In reality, we do not know, of course, what assistance Russia has been giving because it would not have been made public. And likewise for China.

In sum, however, the overall picture remains that while a prominent BRICS member has been massively, existentially attacked, BRICS or its key members have not responded with an open and forceful intervention on behalf of that member.

That fact in and of itself can be read as an incentive to the West and especially the US: It seems, so some in Washington are certain to argue, that while direct assaults on Russia or China would come with great risks, BRICS can be sabotaged and neutralized by picking off individual member states that are less strong. Every time the West will do so, it will also signal that whatever BRICS may do for its members, it won’t keep them safe. Indeed, membership may make them more attractive targets for a West fighting to preserve its declining dominance.

In such a – likely – scenario, it won’t help BRICS as a whole or Russia or China to reiterate that BRICS is not meant as a security alliance. The predictably gloating answer to that from the West will be “We can see that! And you will see what we’ll do to you.”

BRICS, put differently, may have had good reasons to stay out of this fight this time. But if BRICS makes this response into a pattern, its default response for the future, the West will bleed its legitimacy and global standing to death, one war of aggression -or successful bullying by the threat of it – at a time. Hence, BRICS must now face an issue that I pointed out long ago: Simply relying on an inexorably unfolding logic of multipolarity to finally demote and cage the West will not work. Because the West will resist this development tooth and nail, ruthlessly and with the added meanness that comes from being cornered by history itself. And next to Russia and China, BRICS and its members will be its single most important target.

BRICS, in other words, cannot afford the equivalent of Iran’s (now former?) policy of strategic patience. Iran may or may not have had a choice when implementing this extremely cautious course that, in the horrible end, allowed Israel and the US to take apart its crucial regional alliances step by step until it stood almost entirely alone. (For an excellent discussion of this sad story, watch the podcast “Iran makes a huge mistake if they don’t prepare for what’s coming,” by BettBeat Media). BRICS certainly does have a choice: Precisely because it is already fundamentally a giant, it can and must now mobilize the resources to add an effective, that is, effectively frightening element of military deterrence, not attached primarily to its individual members but to the association as whole.

This will be politically difficult, but if BRICS won’t face and accomplish this task, BRICS will be stopped. For the West will not go quietly into what may be a bright day for humanity as a whole but will look like a dark night for its worst and richest exploiters. The West won’t abdicate in a civilized manner, as the Soviets did. The West, in the transition period between its fading dominance and the new multipolar order will be even more dangerous than before, and it will have to be deterred and contained.