Sudan
Source: sudantribune.com

Amid the major transformations underway in the global system, a terrifying scenario is unfolding in the Gulf region. It does not merely describe a new regional war but rather outlines the features of a “Third Gulf War” as an existential war par excellence. It is a complete picture where major international variables merge with military movements on the ground to create a new equation that may reshape the Middle East. Are we facing the spark of a Third World War without realizing it?

BRICS rise: The hidden spark of war?

The scene begins with the assumption that the rising power of emerging economic blocs, led by BRICS, was the hidden motive behind President Trump’s reshaping of American strategy based on the principle of “offence is the best form of defence.” As the world’s economic centre of gravity shifts toward Asia and a real challenge to unilateral American hegemony emerges, Washington appears to be recalculating.

Quick-deal policies are no longer effective, followed by a rapid shift toward the language of overt power, beginning with the replacement of the name “Department of Defence” with “Department of War.” This shift came directly from replacing the mentality of hegemony through force with the policy of deals and quick gains he began with. He then announced the goals: seizing global energy reserves, vital maritime corridors, and achieving the geopolitical dream of “Greater Israel.”

Some estimates suggest that Washington reached certain understandings with Russia and China before taking the first steps to implement this strategy, paving the way for its execution.

From Venezuela to Tehran: Deconstructing the scene

Events take us on a quick tour of the international chessboard, where Venezuela was the first stop in implementing this new strategy. Following Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon, the American administration directed its forces toward Venezuela, penetrated the capital Caracas, arrested President Nicolás Maduro, and announced the seizure of the country’s oil “for the benefit of the American and Venezuelan peoples.” The message was clear: oil resources of nations around the world have become legitimate American targets.

After completing the Venezuela stop peacefully, without any obstacles or objections from Russia or China, President Trump did not waste time. He headed directly toward the second and most complex stop: Iran. Here, the war began with a fierce joint operation with Israel, targeting the country’s top leadership, resulting in the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of Revolutionary Guard leaders. Iran was ready; its response was swift, via missiles and drones targeting American and Israeli interests in the region.

The falling of Iranian missiles inside Gulf states produced a reversal in the positions of those states, which considered these strikes a violation of their sovereignty and entered into a direct verbal confrontation with Tehran. Some European capitals then joined in, declaring support for their traditional ally. Thus, the scope of the conflict began to expand, and fronts began to form.

The American dilemma: A third Vietnam?

As the war continued and costs rose, it became clear that Washington feared a prolonged confrontation. Air war alone did not and will not achieve a decisive victory, and the American leadership realized that without a ground war, it could not win. However, entering a ground war deep into Iranian territory was a nightmare reminiscent of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Here, a new plan began to emerge: Washington and Israel announced their support and armament for Kurdish opponents for the purpose of bringing them into the war “to act on behalf of American soldiers in the ground war.”

Creative chaos: Smart withdrawal and conflict management

Amidst this complexity, a diabolical scenario for the American-Israeli strategy emerges. After Washington realized that victory could not be achieved without a costly ground war, it began pouring oil on the fire of sectarian conflict. The goal: to transform the regional war into a comprehensive civil war between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

In this scene, America and Israel seek to ignite war between these components and then perform a “smart withdrawal,” quietly ascending to the “observers’ gallery,” leaving the region to drown in a bloody chaos that exhausts everyone. The idea is to let the region collapse into internal conflicts, so that Washington can return later to “collect the spoils” and redraw borders according to its interests after everyone has exhausted one another.

Where are Russia and China? And where has BRICS vanished?

Here, the most pressing questions arise: Where do the giants stand? And where has the BRICS alliance disappeared to?

The international scene appears closer to a new Cold War. Russia, preoccupied with its Ukrainian front and balanced in its strained relations with the West, seems unprepared to engage in a direct military adventure. Its support for Iran remained ambiguous, confined to the framework of angry diplomatic rhetoric and limited military-technical cooperation, but without joint defence commitments.

China, Iran’s largest trading partner and its economic lifeline, continues its “long-term game.” Its role is to serve as a diplomatic umbrella in the Security Council and a major buyer of Iranian oil through “ghost fleets,” while avoiding any military involvement. Beijing’s strategy seems to be based on keeping the United States preoccupied in the Middle East quagmire, without causing a total regional collapse that threatens energy supplies.

India’s position has raised a pressing question. Narendra Modi’s clear alignment with the Israeli axis and his close cooperation with Benjamin Netanyahu to establish a “Sextet Alliance” extending from India to the Eastern Mediterranean places major question marks over the cohesion of BRICS. Has New Delhi sacrificed the cheap Russian oil it has benefited from throughout the past years—since Western sanctions were imposed on Russia—and disowned its relationship with Tehran for the sake of a strategic partnership with Tel Aviv and Washington?

Toward a new, unknown world

We conclude this analysis with existential questions: Will this American plan succeed in turning the region into total chaos? Or are Russia and China hiding in the shadows, watching and waiting for the strength of all warring parties to be exhausted before baring their fangs?

What is happening today cannot be reduced to simply being a war on Iran; rather, it is the historical birth pangs of a new international order. It is a moment of reshaping alliances where interests intersect and clash, and where a Third Gulf War could be the spark that returns the world to a new era of extended conflicts.

The solution to this dilemma can only come from the leaders of the region’s countries divesting themselves of their authoritarian tendencies, elevating their sense of nationalism, acting with responsibility, and reaching a unified position based on a correct understanding of their nations’ interests.

the UK
Source: www.middleeasteye.net

How the bloc responds to the war on Iran will have repercussions for how the grouping is seen by members and the world

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva attend a plenary session of the Brics summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 7 July 2025 (Pablo Porciuncula/AFP)

The way Brics responds to the US and Israel's war on Iran, a permanent member, will have repercussions for how the group is perceived and understood - not only by its own members, but the whole world going forward, analysts have told Middle East Eye.

And so far, the signs are far from encouraging.

With more than three days since Israel killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as more than 550 others - including at least 165 children - the bloc, touted as a leader of the Global South, is nowhere to be found.
Iran, a permanent member of the grouping of 11 countries, joined Brics in 2024, when it comprised only the core members Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

Several other countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, joined between 2024 and 2025.

Whereas every member of the original core - besides India - has released individual statements either condemning or raising concerns about the killing of Khamenei, the bloc itself has yet to utter a word as a collective. 

"Modi was basically in Israel, hugging Netanyahu and making it very clear that, seemingly, there's a much stronger solidarity or kinship between these two leaders, and this is going to extend officially into the respective bilateral relations, officially," Priyal Singh, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Pretoria, told MEE.
Singh said that India's closeness to Israel, as well as Iran's retaliatory attacks on the UAE, in particular, has likely made it even harder for Brics to reach a place of consensus. 

Brics is currently chaired by New Delhi, which last week upgraded India-Israel ties to "a special strategic partnership" and whose statements and actions since have been interpreted as being aligned with Israel's war on Iran.  
On 1 March, India condemned Iran’s missile strikes on the UAE.

The bloc has been routinely divided and seemingly paralysed by differing agendas and a lack of alignment on global issues - from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to Israel's genocide in Gaza.

But its inability to respond to an attack and attempt at the overthrow of the government of a permanent member of the bloc may just be the most damaging hit to its credibility yet. 

"This conflict will have significant repercussions on how the group is perceived and understood, not just by its members, but by the whole international community," Singh said.

'Banal hype'

Brics is group of 11 countries: Brazil; Russia; India; China; South Africa; Saudi Arabia; Egypt; the United Arab Emirates; Ethiopia; Indonesia; and Iran. 

Analysts have argued that the expansion of Brics has dented its ability to take clear and unified positions.
Other observers note that it isn't necessarily the size of Brics, but the economic policies and investments of individual states - including significant trade ties with Israel - as well as the institutional design of Brics itself.

None of the collective decisions made by Brics are binding on individual states.

'No Brics ruling class will come to Iran's aid when at the same time, their class interests are in Israel's prosperity, genocide or not'

- Patrick Bond, Centre for Social Change, University of Johannesburg

"If the Brics don't break, it will probably be because for most, their commonality is more powerful, namely corporate profiteering in Israel," Patrick Bond, director of the Centre for Social Change at the University of Johannesburg, told MEE.

Bond said Brics countries' continued commitment to economic deals with Israel is ultimately likely to "outweigh genuine solidarity with Iran, just as we have seen recently with Venezuela and probably soon in Cuba, too."
"No Brics ruling class will come to Iran's aid when at the same time, their class interests are in Israel's prosperity, genocide or not," he said.

Whereas India has yet to issue a statement on Khamenei, China has reportedly sent weapons to Iran.

On Monday, Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia economist, told an Indian news channel that the war on Iran could stop if the Brics countries stood up to American hegemony. 

"This is the only way the world can be safe. And so this is actually a responsibility of the Brics right now, which is the only standing bulwark against America's global empire," Sachs said.

But Bond referred to Sachs' comments as "banal hype".

Likewise, Singh, from the ISS in Pretoria, said there were so many geopolitical realignments occurring in the Middle East that it was unrealistic to expect Brics to easily find common ground.

"The UAE is bit of a wild card now within the grouping because of its normalisation of its relations with Israel ... and the broader strategic alignments when it comes to things like Somaliland," Singh said.

"So my feeling is that there are two emerging axes of power within the Middle East, centred around the UAE and the Saudis ... and those two axes are going to be emboldened based on a weakened Iran or a degraded regime, at the very least.

"I could be wrong, though we may get some kind of extraordinary meeting or something in which we get a statement, but I wouldn't be too confident of that," he added.

Brics nations are expected to assemble again in New Delhi in September.

Qatar
Source: www.aljazeera.com

Since India took over as chair, the normally outspoken BRICS grouping of countries appears to be more cautious.

Nearly a week into the United States-Israel war on Iran and the BRICS bloc, a multi-country alliance that includes Tehran, has not reacted in any form to the conflict.

To analysts and political observers, that seems out of character. When the 12-day war between Israel and Iran broke out in June last year, the bloc, which Brazil then chaired, was quick to state that US-Israeli joint attacks on Iran were a “violation of international law”.

However, since the chairmanship of BRICS shifted to India in December 2025, New Delhi’s own interests appear to be overriding the alliance’s objectives, critics say, as India signals closer ties with Israel and the US.

The 11-member BRICS grouping was formed as an economic alliance in 2009 and is widely regarded as a “Global South” alternative to the exclusive Group of Seven (G7) alliance of industrialised economies.

US President Donald Trump once accused its members of being “anti-American”, although BRICS has said it does not see itself as competing with or countering any other groups.

In recent years, the organisation’s mandate has broadened to include security issues, with members conducting joint military drills – most recently hosted by South Africa in January this year, when India opted out.

BRICS is named after the first letters of its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Since 2024, BRICS has expanded to include Indonesia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Here’s what we know about how India’s interests may have come into conflict with those of other BRICS nations:

How have BRICS countries responded to the US-Israel war on Iran?

The organisation itself, under Indian leadership in 2026, has not commented directly about the US-Israeli Operation Epic Fury in Iran, which has seen multiple missile and drone attacks across the country, killing more than 1,230 people in its first six days.

However, individually, three of its five founding members have issued statements commiserating with Iranians mourning loved ones and denouncing violations of international law.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, whose administration is embroiled in a dispute of its own with the US over the Trump-alleged, but debunked, “genocide” of white South Africans, voiced concerns about the conflict on Wednesday and warned that the fighting could go beyond the Middle East.

“We want a ceasefire, we want this madness to come to an end,” Ramaphosa told reporters, three days after his African National Congress party first issued a statement “condemning” the US and Israel’s “anticipatory self-defence based on assumption or conjecture”.

South Africa, Ramaphosa added on Wednesday, is also ready to play a mediator role to help resolve the issue and end the loss of lives. The country came in for heavy US criticism earlier in January when Iran was allowed to participate in the BRICS naval drills hosted by South Africa, amid reports of massacres of Iranian protesters.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin similarly criticised the joint US-Israel attacks and the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in strikes on Saturday, in a letter to President Masoud Pezeshkian. Moscow and Tehran have close ties, with Russia providing weapons and weaponry to Iran. However, Moscow has not indicated any willingness to intervene militarily to support Iran.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said there was no evidence that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons – a key issue for the US and Israel – and that the war could lead to the very outcome the two allies claimed they wanted to prevent: Nuclear proliferation across the region.

As the bombs dropped on Iran last Saturday, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the US and Israel of “premeditated and unprovoked acts of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state”.

Moscow itself stands accused of aggression against a sovereign nation, amid its fifth year of war on Ukraine.

Meanwhile, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Gideon Saar, his Israeli counterpart, over the phone on Tuesday that Iran had been attacked as negotiations between Washington and Tehran “made significant progress, including addressing Israel’s security concerns”, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

Wang added that China “opposes any military strikes launched by Israel and the US against Iran”, according to the Foreign Ministry.

What has India said?

Of the founding members, only India has not outrightly condemned the US-Israel attacks on Iran. Under its chairmanship of BRICS, the organisation has also been unusually silent on the war.

On Tuesday, three days after the first attacks hit Tehran, killing Khamenei and several of Iran’s senior military officials, New Delhi made cautious calls for an “early end to the conflict” in a statement by the country’s Ministry of External Affairs.

“India strongly reiterates its call for dialogue and diplomacy. We share our voice clearly in favour of an early end to the conflict,” the ministry said, adding that the war risked regional stability and the safety of thousands of Indian nationals living and working in the Gulf region.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also spoke to Gulf countries and criticised retaliatory attacks on their territories, without mentioning Iran.

Critics, especially from the Indian opposition Congress party, have called out Modi’s lack of outright denunciation of the Israeli-US attacks and the killing of Khamenei, especially in light of Modi’s visit to Israel, during which he addressed the Knesset in Jerusalem, just days before the war began.

The timing of the visit gave the appearance of “tacit approval” of the attacks on Iran, the party said on Monday.

Is India moving closer to Israel?

Modi undertook a state visit to Israel on February 25 and 26, 2026. He met with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on suspicion of war crimes related to Israel’s onslaught on Gaza.

Addressing the Knesset, Modi affirmed that “India stands with Israel, firmly, with full conviction, in this moment and beyond,” even as Israel has come under fire globally for the genocidal campaign in Gaza and deadly attacks by Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied West Bank.

Modi and Netanyahu went on to sign several trade agreements on defence and artificial intelligence, areas in which they have long collaborated. Israel also sends about 40 percent of its arms exports to India.

In a post on X, Modi wrote that the two countries had elevated “our time-tested partnership to a Special Strategic Partnership” during his visit.

About the same time, the threat of Israel-US attacks on Iran was looming. Modi may even have known about the attacks, one former Indian diplomat told Indo-Pacific-focused The Diplomat magazine.

The Modi government has not responded to this allegation.

Reuven Azar, Israeli ambassador to India, told local publication The Indian Express on Wednesday that the opportunity to launch the joint attacks on Iran came “only after Prime Minister Modi left”.
Has the US pressured India?

India has long championed a stance of strategic autonomy, allowing it to trade with Western countries while also deepening ties with countries viewed in the West as pariah states, such as Russia. That is part of the reason it was a founding BRICS member.

A tense standoff arose with the administration of US President Donald Trump over India’s continued purchase of sanctioned Russian oil last year. Trump imposed sweeping import levies of up to 50 percent on India in August 2025, partly as punishment for this. India, whose largest trading partner is the US, described the additional tariffs as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable”.

The tariffs threatened to destabilise about 70 percent of India’s exports to the US, the country’s research council warned afterwards, urging quick trade reforms. India majorly exports electronics, pharmaceuticals, and jewellery to the US.
By February, the picture had changed. Following talks, Trump announced an agreement with India that slashed tariffs to 18 percent as he claimed that Delhi had agreed to stop buying Russian oil and to instead buy more US oil and other products.

“Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India for this wonderful announcement,” PM Modi wrote on the X social platform in response.

Will India’s relations with Israel and the US affect the BRICS alliance?

When President Trump first took office, he threatened BRICS countries with an additional 10 percent tariff as part of his trade war.

Then, in July, he took aim at the group again before its annual summit, saying: “When I heard about this group from BRICS, six countries, basically, I hit them very, very hard. And if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly.”

While India has continued to participate in routine BRICS meetings in recent months, it has notably stayed away from security issues.

In January, when BRICS countries met in South Africa to hold military drills, New Delhi was absent, although it was already the group chair at the time. India gave no reasons why. Brazil, which faced US tariff problems of its own, also chose not to participate, but was present as an observer.

Opting out for India was “about balancing ties with the US”, Harsh Pant, a geopolitical analyst at the New Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation, told Al Jazeera at the time.

Fellow BRICS member China has similarly faced a gruelling trade war with the US, but has spoken up in support of Iran.

Some critics fault Beijing for not directly intervening in the war to support its ally. However, Dong Wang, a professor of international studies at Peking University, said those expectations misunderstand China’s position.

“China advocates mediation, not military involvement,” he said.

Comparing Beijing’s response to Delhi’s, the professor said India was choosing a “cautious, balanced posture emphasising de-escalation”.

But the differing responses from BRICS nations, he added, reflect a need for its members to come to a consensus even as they hold diverse ties and strategic priorities.

Such a consensus will be needed if the group continues to stand, and its existence is something Beijing takes seriously, Wang said.

“From China’s perspective, BRICS unity matters, and differences are normal within a diverse multilateral framework,” he said.

“Beijing continues to encourage BRICS to uphold its founding purpose: Supporting multilateralism, peaceful settlement, and the collective voice of the Global South.”