Geopolitics isn't a group therapy session.
The media loves a good "trouble in paradise" narrative. When Iran and the UAE exchange sharp words over three islands in the Persian Gulf during a BRICS gathering, the standard commentary rings out like a broken record. They claim the bloc is fragile. They say the lack of consensus proves BRICS is a paper tiger. They argue that without a unified "West Asian" policy, the group will never challenge the G7.
They are looking at the wrong map.
The belief that internal friction equals failure is a Western projection born from the rigid, "with us or against us" architecture of NATO. In that old-world model, one crack in the facade is a crisis. In the BRICS model, friction isn't a bug—it’s the engine. The assumption that these nations need to like each other to dismantle the dollar-centric financial system is the most expensive mistake a strategist can make.
The Consensus Trap
Most analysts focus on the "Three Islands" dispute—Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs—as if it’s a terminal illness for the bloc. It’s not. It’s a localized headache.
Consensus is a luxury for stable, homogenous groups. BRICS is an unruly collection of survivors. They aren't looking for a collective identity; they are looking for a collective escape hatch. Iran wants an end to isolation. The UAE wants to diversify its security and trade dependencies. Brazil wants a voice. Russia wants a workaround.
When the UAE and Iran "spar," they are conducting business as usual. To expect them to drop decades-old territorial claims just because they joined a trade club is naive. The genius of the BRICS expansion isn't that it creates peace—it’s that it creates a platform where conflict doesn't stop the money from moving.
I’ve watched institutional investors flee emerging markets the moment two leaders exchange a cold look. They lose out every single time to the pragmatists who understand that "alignment" is a Western fairy tale. In the East, you trade with your rivals because it's the only way to ensure they don't become your enemies.
Weaponizing the Friction
If you want a unified front, go to a G7 summit where everyone signs a pre-written communique and eats the same catered salmon. BRICS is messy because it represents reality.
The "lack of consensus" on West Asia isn't a weakness; it's a firewall. By refusing to adopt a singular stance on regional conflicts, the bloc avoids becoming a target. If BRICS backed Iran’s claims, it would alienate the Gulf. If it backed the UAE, it would lose the North-South Transport Corridor. By doing neither, it remains a purely functional mechanism for de-dollarization and alternative payment systems.
The real story isn't that they are fighting. The real story is that they are fighting inside the room instead of leaving it.
The De-Dollarization Distraction
While the press is busy counting how many times the UAE representative looked at his watch during the Iranian speech, the actual work is happening in the plumbing.
The "BRICS Pay" system and the push for local currency settlements don't require the UAE and Iran to agree on who owns a pile of rocks in the Gulf. They only require a mutual desire to avoid the SWIFT system’s chokehold.
Think about it. If you and your neighbor hate each other over a property line dispute, you might still both agree that the local bank's fees are too high. You don't need to be friends to use the same ATM.
The Myth of the "Unified West"
The biggest lie the competitor’s article pushes is the implicit idea that "Western" blocs are more stable. Ask a French diplomat about AUKUS. Ask a German industrialist about the Inflation Reduction Act. The West is a series of internal trade wars masked by a thin veil of shared values.
BRICS simply stopped pretending.
The entry of Iran and the UAE into the same bloc is a masterclass in hedging. Both nations realize that the American security umbrella is looking more like a parasol in a hurricane. They are joining BRICS not to find new best friends, but to ensure they have a seat at the table when the new financial architecture is built.
Stop Asking if They Agree
The question "Can BRICS reach a consensus?" is the wrong question. It’s a 20th-century question.
The 21st-century question is: "Can they transact despite their disagreement?"
The data says yes. Trade volume between BRICS nations is growing even as their diplomatic rhetoric heats up. In 2023, intra-BRICS trade reached levels that would have been laughed at a decade ago. This growth isn't happening because of a shared vision for West Asia. It’s happening because of a shared fear of the status quo.
If you are waiting for a unified BRICS military or a joint foreign policy before you take them seriously, you will be waiting while your competitors eat your lunch. The bloc's power lies in its ability to house contradictions. It is a "big tent" of grievances, and those grievances are exactly what make it a credible threat to the existing order.
The Harsh Reality for Investors
If you're managing a portfolio or a supply chain, ignore the territorial spats. They are noise.
Focus on the following:
- Payment Rails: Are they building a system that bypasses the dollar? Yes.
- Resource Control: Do they hold the keys to the energy and minerals needed for the next century? Yes.
- Demographics: Do they have the people? Yes.
The UAE and Iran could spend the next fifty years arguing over islands, and it wouldn't change the fact that they both need an alternative to the Western financial hegemony.
The "uncertainty" the media laments is actually the most certain thing in the world. National interest always beats regional harmony. BRICS is the first organization that accepts this as a founding principle rather than a failure.
Quit looking for a peace treaty. Start looking for the ledger. The friction you see today is just the sound of the world's center of gravity shifting.
Stop worrying about the islands. Start worrying about the infrastructure.
