President Trump had planned to visit China as the victorious leader that had subjugated both Venezuela and Iran, taking full control of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz; through which nearly half of China’s oil imports pass.
Boyd may well be right. He provides good grounds for believing that BRICS is a busted flush, a tragedy that might within the next few hours or days, prove to be the only ‘victory’ that Trump has gained by his ill-considered decisions to invade Iran and blockade the Strait of Hormuz.
One would not be surprised, therefore, to learn that the outcome of the current BRICS meeting in India is an announcement that the members will no longer interact with each other under the banner of BRICS; and/or that the wannabe full members of BRICS no longer wish to join.
However, should that not prove to be the case, it would not be a total surprise. We might discover that the glue holding the loose association together proved to be the New Development Bank.
Four of the five founding members of the NDB each contributed $10 billion to the capitalisation of the bank and each has borrowed from the bank on far more lenient terms than they could have gotten from the IMF. Moreover, since China had originally contributed $100 billion to the NDB, with a promise of more to come, it wouldn’t be a shock to find that the core of BRICS remained intact.
Moreover, in the presence of a soon to be cash strapped global economy, (my prediction) where generous borrowing terms are a rarity, we might also find many other BRICS members and partners still wanting to hang out together with a common sentiment in mind: namely, that doing so does not require them to surrender the remainder of their precious sovereignty to some overarching central body that prescribes the modes of interaction between them. While China may still embrace them, it will not be in a vice-like grip.
It is still possible too, that Saudi Arabia can be persuaded into some kind of Pakistan + Iran (& Türkiye?) alliance and eventually into BRICStan, if they can ease their way out of financial ties to the US, and close down their internal US bases. This would be logical and advantageous in the longer term for them, and MBS has been showing signs of distancing himself from the collapsing empire.
The West has shown its readiness to freeze/steal foreign funds of countries that it is unhappy with, so Saudi Arabia has to be careful with its vast SWF holdings. The balance to that is that any such theft would tend to create a rush out of Western assets, but the Saudis would still have to manage a very careful exit. In addition of course there will always be a Western proclivity for colour revolutions and coups in such circumstances. Perhaps a careful neutrality.
If I were Trump, I would do “a Nixon”, and go to Tehran to settle the Middle East conflict, enter into a non-aggression and non-interference pact with Iran and all other regional countries, declare that Israel needs to open up its nuclear sites for inspection and destroy all of its nuclear weapons, and withdraw all of its military back to its original borders. And recognise Palestine as an independent state in the United Nations. Then ask Norwegians for a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize. 🏆
Its not up to Trump, he is simply the representative of the US oligarchy. The last thing they want is a strong Iran as the south western pillar of a Safe Asian Space. Then there would be a little problem of the 1/5th of the US population that are Christian Zionists and the significant proportion of the US oligarchy that are also Zionists.
You are probably right. Trump has to decide whether to be a great president worthy of a peace prize or end up as the first US president to be impeached and possibly serve a jail sentence.
Excellent analysis, thanks. Trump's crowd sidling into the meeting room to meet Xi looked like schoolboys about to face the headmaster! The administration is a perfidious and wretched crew indeed. btw Don't write off India completely despite their treachery regarding Iran (detaining the sailors, etc.) India is too big to be in anyone's camp.
I agree that India will tend to remain independent, but the rentier nature of its oligarchy and the cultural orientation toward the West (e.g. oligarch children attending English schools and universities) stop it from becoming a positive force within Asia. Its role is much more like that of Turkey, flip flopping back and forth in a tactical manner. The hindutva orientation of the government also causes strains with other Moslem nations.
Fair point. With division between Hindu and Muslim the goal of the British in 1948 and the creation of Pakistan, it is surprising and regrettable that both sides, in sustaining this emnity, are simply continuing to serving their former colonial rulers, apparently blindly, nearly 80 years later. Making both easy pickings for US and UK manipulation. India even go so far as to cultivate positive sentiment toward Israel. Yes the enemy of my enemy can be my friend. In the case of Israel it can be a PR disaster also.
Great analysis. Definitely agree that China is playing the long game in managing the decline of the US. The question is, will the US decline peacefully or fight to maintain it's hegemony with disastrous consequences for the world. My bet is on the latter as we are already seeing in Iran.
BRICS was already dead before this as Modi and his cronies are essentially US assets, just no longer in disguise as is the case for others. The rest of BRICS, excluding China and Russia, are either too weak, too closely aligned with the US, or both to encourage the growth of a new international order.
As the decline continues, potentially accelerating due to the Iran war, I think the world become more regional with regional orders emerging.
The war of aggression with Iran has laid bare the colossal shortcomings of the US Military Industrial Complex, which is much more efficient at turning gobs of war spending into profits than it is in producing cost effective and competitive weaponry. The meagre stores of stand-off weapons that have been so rapidly depleted in the war and the ease with which Iran devastated so many US bases is a testament to that. The US armoury has also been heavily depleted by the Ukrainian proxy war and the Israeli genocide. Any attempt by the US to "have another go" at Iran will simply exacerbate this problem.
With all the supplies it needs, the US MIC would take a number of years to replenish what has been used in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. But even with such a replenishment, would the US even have the strength to attack China given how fast it used up its inventory against a much lesser Iran? But it may take many more than a few years given China's dual use export controls on the very materials needed to rebuild the US armoury.
The US attack on Iran may be seen as a parallel of the Athens attack upon Sicily, both started out with a bang but then turned into defeats that sucked the power of the aggressor nation. Athens saw a victory in Sicily breaking its stalemate with the Peloponnesian League, the US perhaps saw the same with respect to Iran and the stalemate with the China+Russia alliance.
The window for US aggressive action against China has most probably closed, and China practises patience (e.g. with Taiwan) whilst removing the ability of others to successfully attack it. In future years, the US attack on Iran may be seen as marking the accelerating decline of the US.
Boyd may well be right. He provides good grounds for believing that BRICS is a busted flush, a tragedy that might within the next few hours or days, prove to be the only ‘victory’ that Trump has gained by his ill-considered decisions to invade Iran and blockade the Strait of Hormuz.
One would not be surprised, therefore, to learn that the outcome of the current BRICS meeting in India is an announcement that the members will no longer interact with each other under the banner of BRICS; and/or that the wannabe full members of BRICS no longer wish to join.
However, should that not prove to be the case, it would not be a total surprise. We might discover that the glue holding the loose association together proved to be the New Development Bank.
Four of the five founding members of the NDB each contributed $10 billion to the capitalisation of the bank and each has borrowed from the bank on far more lenient terms than they could have gotten from the IMF. Moreover, since China had originally contributed $100 billion to the NDB, with a promise of more to come, it wouldn’t be a shock to find that the core of BRICS remained intact.
Moreover, in the presence of a soon to be cash strapped global economy, (my prediction) where generous borrowing terms are a rarity, we might also find many other BRICS members and partners still wanting to hang out together with a common sentiment in mind: namely, that doing so does not require them to surrender the remainder of their precious sovereignty to some overarching central body that prescribes the modes of interaction between them. While China may still embrace them, it will not be in a vice-like grip.
So more a tactical arrangement than a strategic one.
👍
Keep up the good work Roger.
POTUS lost quite a bit of face at the airport on way in.
America is a bunch of fuking murdering terrorists
It is still possible too, that Saudi Arabia can be persuaded into some kind of Pakistan + Iran (& Türkiye?) alliance and eventually into BRICStan, if they can ease their way out of financial ties to the US, and close down their internal US bases. This would be logical and advantageous in the longer term for them, and MBS has been showing signs of distancing himself from the collapsing empire.
The West has shown its readiness to freeze/steal foreign funds of countries that it is unhappy with, so Saudi Arabia has to be careful with its vast SWF holdings. The balance to that is that any such theft would tend to create a rush out of Western assets, but the Saudis would still have to manage a very careful exit. In addition of course there will always be a Western proclivity for colour revolutions and coups in such circumstances. Perhaps a careful neutrality.
If I were Trump, I would do “a Nixon”, and go to Tehran to settle the Middle East conflict, enter into a non-aggression and non-interference pact with Iran and all other regional countries, declare that Israel needs to open up its nuclear sites for inspection and destroy all of its nuclear weapons, and withdraw all of its military back to its original borders. And recognise Palestine as an independent state in the United Nations. Then ask Norwegians for a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize. 🏆
Its not up to Trump, he is simply the representative of the US oligarchy. The last thing they want is a strong Iran as the south western pillar of a Safe Asian Space. Then there would be a little problem of the 1/5th of the US population that are Christian Zionists and the significant proportion of the US oligarchy that are also Zionists.
You are probably right. Trump has to decide whether to be a great president worthy of a peace prize or end up as the first US president to be impeached and possibly serve a jail sentence.
Excellent analysis, thanks. Trump's crowd sidling into the meeting room to meet Xi looked like schoolboys about to face the headmaster! The administration is a perfidious and wretched crew indeed. btw Don't write off India completely despite their treachery regarding Iran (detaining the sailors, etc.) India is too big to be in anyone's camp.
I agree that India will tend to remain independent, but the rentier nature of its oligarchy and the cultural orientation toward the West (e.g. oligarch children attending English schools and universities) stop it from becoming a positive force within Asia. Its role is much more like that of Turkey, flip flopping back and forth in a tactical manner. The hindutva orientation of the government also causes strains with other Moslem nations.
Fair point. With division between Hindu and Muslim the goal of the British in 1948 and the creation of Pakistan, it is surprising and regrettable that both sides, in sustaining this emnity, are simply continuing to serving their former colonial rulers, apparently blindly, nearly 80 years later. Making both easy pickings for US and UK manipulation. India even go so far as to cultivate positive sentiment toward Israel. Yes the enemy of my enemy can be my friend. In the case of Israel it can be a PR disaster also.
Great analysis. Definitely agree that China is playing the long game in managing the decline of the US. The question is, will the US decline peacefully or fight to maintain it's hegemony with disastrous consequences for the world. My bet is on the latter as we are already seeing in Iran.
BRICS was already dead before this as Modi and his cronies are essentially US assets, just no longer in disguise as is the case for others. The rest of BRICS, excluding China and Russia, are either too weak, too closely aligned with the US, or both to encourage the growth of a new international order.
As the decline continues, potentially accelerating due to the Iran war, I think the world become more regional with regional orders emerging.
The war of aggression with Iran has laid bare the colossal shortcomings of the US Military Industrial Complex, which is much more efficient at turning gobs of war spending into profits than it is in producing cost effective and competitive weaponry. The meagre stores of stand-off weapons that have been so rapidly depleted in the war and the ease with which Iran devastated so many US bases is a testament to that. The US armoury has also been heavily depleted by the Ukrainian proxy war and the Israeli genocide. Any attempt by the US to "have another go" at Iran will simply exacerbate this problem.
With all the supplies it needs, the US MIC would take a number of years to replenish what has been used in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. But even with such a replenishment, would the US even have the strength to attack China given how fast it used up its inventory against a much lesser Iran? But it may take many more than a few years given China's dual use export controls on the very materials needed to rebuild the US armoury.
The US attack on Iran may be seen as a parallel of the Athens attack upon Sicily, both started out with a bang but then turned into defeats that sucked the power of the aggressor nation. Athens saw a victory in Sicily breaking its stalemate with the Peloponnesian League, the US perhaps saw the same with respect to Iran and the stalemate with the China+Russia alliance.
The window for US aggressive action against China has most probably closed, and China practises patience (e.g. with Taiwan) whilst removing the ability of others to successfully attack it. In future years, the US attack on Iran may be seen as marking the accelerating decline of the US.
Just a pity that we're not going to see Trump et al in the quarries of Syracuse.
Nice summery!