The Middle East stands on the brink of a wider conflagration, with tensions between Iran and Israel reaching dangerous heights. The recent Israeli attacks deep into Iranian territory, reportedly killing high-ranking military officials and nuclear scientists, are being seen not merely as acts of self-defense or retaliation, but part of a calculated strategy with much broader geopolitical implications. While many analysts attribute the hostilities to Iran’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions, there is a growing belief among global observers that Iran’s rising role in BRICS is an equally crucial factor in the Israel-US agenda to isolate and destabilize Tehran.
The United States and Israel, long-time strategic allies, have consistently opposed Iran’s rise—politically, militarily, and economically. Iran’s entry into BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) marked a significant turning point in the geopolitical order. For decades, the US has maintained global hegemony through military bases, economic sanctions, and international institutions. However, BRICS challenges this unipolarity by offering a counterbalance rooted in economic cooperation, multipolar diplomacy, and alternative financial systems like the proposed BRICS currency.
Iran’s inclusion in BRICS was not just symbolic; it was strategic. Sitting at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia, Iran is rich in natural resources, particularly oil and gas, and holds a key geographical position on the global trade routes, including the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Iran also enjoys deep ties with Russia and China, both founding members of BRICS and strong advocates for a multipolar world.
With Iran in BRICS, the bloc not only gains energy security and a pivotal trade node, but also a strong political voice in the Muslim world. Iran is one of the few countries that actively defies the West’s dictates and survives despite harsh sanctions. For China and Russia, Iran represents a vital bulwark against US-led interventions and regime change policies in the region.
Now consider the scenario that the US and Israel seek: A regime change in Tehran. If the current government is overthrown and replaced with a Western-aligned leadership, it would effectively insert a Trojan horse within BRICS. This new Iranian regime, possibly more compliant to Washington’s directives, could subtly undermine BRICS from within, leaking sensitive information, obstructing multilateral economic plans, and ultimately disrupting the alliance’s cohesion.
Such a regime would also facilitate normalization of relations with Israel and possibly support the Abraham Accords, thus weakening resistance axes across Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. It is not hard to see why the idea of a pro-West Iran is appealing to Tel Aviv and Washington.
Understanding the gravity of the situation, both China and Russia appear to be acting preemptively. Their support for Iran in the face of Israeli aggression signals that they will not allow Iran to fall, at least not without a significant global cost. Both powers understand that if Iran collapses, it could destabilize the broader Eurasian integration efforts led by BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China has even issued warnings to its citizens to leave Israel, indicating that Beijing is preparing for possible escalation and may even get directly involved diplomatically or otherwise.
Russia, already entangled in a war with Ukraine and facing off NATO pressure, cannot afford to lose Iran—its key regional ally and partner in counter-Western narratives. There are reports of increased defense cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, including arms supplies and strategic advisory roles.
It would be remiss not to mention the nuclear issue. While Israel and the US loudly oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it is equally true that China and Russia also do not want a nuclear-armed Iran. The difference is in approach. While the West pushes for pressure, sanctions, and military threats, Beijing and Moscow prefer engagement, diplomacy, and regional integration as tools to moderate Iranian behavior. They believe that a cornered Iran is more likely to seek nuclear deterrence, while an empowered, economically integrated Iran has more to gain from global cooperation.
It is critical for the US and Israel to recognize that Iran is not Gaza, not Syria, and not Lebanon. It is a nation of nearly 90 million people with a landmass of 1.6 million square kilometers, making it the 17th largest country in the world by area—over 75 times larger than Israel. It has a well-established state apparatus, indigenous military-industrial capabilities, a well-educated population, and strategic depth that allows it to absorb and respond to foreign aggression in a way smaller nations cannot.
An open war with Iran would not be a short, surgical strike campaign. It would unleash region-wide chaos. Iran has the capability to disrupt oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, strike US bases across the Middle East, and unleash its network of allied non-state actors in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. The human, political, and economic toll of such a conflict would be catastrophic—not just for the region, but for the world economy.
The G7 summit in Canada recently called for restraint and a ceasefire, reflecting growing unease among Western allies. President Donald Trump, despite his many controversies, continues to claim he can broker peace in the Middle East. If he truly seeks a legacy of peace, now is the time to act. He must engage with all parties, not just Israel, and offer an inclusive diplomatic track. A broader war will not only destroy Iran or Israel—it will damage US credibility and expose its declining ability to enforce global order.
The Middle East has suffered enough. Decades of war, foreign interventions, and authoritarian misgovernance have made it a graveyard of peace initiatives. The new geopolitical landscape demands maturity. If BRICS is to be a serious contender to Western hegemony, it must stand firm against efforts to sabotage its unity through regime change and destabilization. Likewise, the US and Israel must realize that not every defiant state can be bombed into submission. Iran, with its size, population, and geopolitical value, is not a pushover. War will not bring regime change; it will bring chaos.
The time has come to prioritize diplomacy, economic cooperation, and global stability over ambition, vendetta, and military adventurism. A balanced Middle East, where no one state seeks to dominate, is in everyone’s interest—including Israel and the United States.
