The British will not accept this possibility...

Editor's note: ...with BRICS and will continue aggressively pushing for war as the sovereign debt crisis is unsustainable. As pointed out in this essay: "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." In other words, a cornered rat. And at the recent St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia:

Territory Of Growth. Russia's New Regions Break European Records In Terms Of Development Rates

________  

Iran, BRICS, and the Dangers of Strategic Patience

Multipolarity must arm itself

By Tarik Cyril Amar | June 27, 2025

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.

Please go to substack to continue reading.
_______


This EU news source spins the story to favor a war with Russia:

'It's possible' Putin will invade more than Ukraine, says Donald Trump

As for the British, well corporations run governments and they have privatized war:

Dystopia UK: Genocidal RAF Squadron Targeted by Palestine Action is Owned by a Hedge Fund