Washington and Brussels still share the same core goals in the Middle East: prevent nuclear proliferation, avoid regional war, stabilize energy flows, and suppress jihadist networks. But they now pursue those goals with different playbooks, shaped by diverging political cultures, institutional habits, and strategic priorities.
The new “America First” arms‑transfer strategy is not a bureaucratic tweak. It is a fundamental reordering of how Washington decides who gets weapons, when, and why. By ranking partners based on defense spending, geographic utility, and economic benefit to the U.S., the administration has replaced alliance‑building with transactional filtering.
The global economy is now fully multipolar in production and consumption, yet its financial backbone still runs through a single national currency. That mismatch — a 21st‑century world running on 1944 plumbing — is what BRICS is trying to correct. Not by dethroning the dollar with the renminbi, but by building a neutral clearing system that avoids the trap of replacing one hegemon with another.
For decades, Europe treated American digital infrastructure and financial networks as neutral utilities. That illusion has collapsed. The combination of extraterritorial U.S. laws, sanctions used as administrative weapons, and the growing willingness of Washington to threaten allies has forced European governments to confront a simple truth: dependency equals vulnerability.
BRICS has evolved from a clever acronym into a geopolitical project large enough to unsettle Washington. Trump’s 2025 tariff threats — and the panic triggered by his Spain “BRICS” gaffe — reveal how seriously the U.S. now treats the bloc. With 20 members and partners, BRICS+ represents a demographic and economic mass that rivals the G7, even if its internal cohesion remains uneven.
China is no longer treating Israeli covert operations inside Iran as a distant regional issue. For Beijing, the recent wave of sabotage, assassinations, and radar penetrations has revealed a new model of warfare — one that blends cyber infiltration, internal disruption, and precision strikes. And because Iran sits at the heart of China’s Belt and Road energy corridor, Beijing now sees Iranian vulnerability as Chinese vulnerability.
Turkey is no longer treating its dispute with Israel as a diplomatic quarrel. It has transformed the relationship into a multi‑front legal, economic, and institutional confrontation designed to outlast the Gaza war and reshape regional norms. What began as political outrage has evolved into a sustained strategy of prosecution, isolation, and norm‑setting — a shift far more consequential than the Mavi Marmara rupture of 2010.
In early 2026, the “Collapse of Democratic Consensus” in the United States is no longer a theoretical risk—it is a measurable statistical reality. The transition from partisan disagreement to regime delegitimation is being driven by a historic hollowing out of the political center and an unprecedented alienation of the youth.
In early 2026, Iraq finds itself in a state of “organized confusion” as it attempts to finalize its government following the November 11, 2025 elections. The sudden withdrawal of Mohammed Shia al-Sudani and the push for Nuri al-Maliki’s return have transformed a domestic transition into a high-stakes standoff between Washington and Tehran.
U.S. decision‑making on Iran is increasingly shaped not by structured interagency analysis but by a feedback loop of emotional validation. When a leader repeatedly asks a narrow circle of loyalists whether an action is a “winner,” the question itself becomes a self‑fulfilling prophecy. The result is a foreign policy environment where impulse, affirmation, and narrative gratification override strategic caution.
Iran favors Muscat because Oman offers neutrality, discretion, and insulation from agenda‑expanding pressures, allowing Tehran to control the scope of talks and avoid the political exposure it fears in venues like Istanbul.
Trump’s bid to nationalize elections and pressure Democratic-led states mirrors his foreign intervention tactics, using federal enforcement and delegitimization to treat domestic opponents as territories to be coerced rather than communities to be governed.
