On June 21, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that United States forces had conducted what he described as “very successful attacks” on three major Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. This unprecedented direct military action by the US against Iran represents a historic escalation in Middle Eastern geopolitics and has profound implications for multilateral organizations where Iran holds membership, particularly BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

The strikes mark the first time the United States has directly attacked Iranian nuclear infrastructure, fundamentally altering the strategic landscape in the Middle East and challenging the existing international order. As Iran has increasingly aligned itself with alternative international frameworks led by China and Russia, this military action raises critical questions about the effectiveness of these multilateral organizations in protecting their members and their ability to challenge US hegemony.

The Immediate Context: Escalation in the Israel-Iran Conflict

The US strikes came amid an intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran that had been escalating throughout June 2025. The conflict entered a new phase when Israel launched unilateral military strikes against Iranian positions on June 13, prompting Iranian retaliation including strikes on the Israeli city of Haifa that injured 33 people. President Trump had been deliberating for days about whether to directly intervene in the conflict, ultimately deciding to act before his self-imposed two-week deadline.

The choice of targets was particularly significant. The three facilities struck—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—represent the core of Iran’s nuclear program. Fordow, built deep underground and considered one of the most secure nuclear facilities in the world, was described by Trump as receiving “a full payload of BOMBS.” The use of bunker-busting bombs delivered by B-2 stealth bombers, the only aircraft capable of penetrating such fortified positions, demonstrates the scale and sophistication of the operation.

This direct intervention by the United States represents a dramatic departure from previous approaches to the Iranian nuclear program, which had relied primarily on economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and proxy conflicts. The decision to directly target Iranian nuclear infrastructure signals a fundamental shift in US strategy and has immediate implications for Iran’s relationships with its allies in BRICS, SCO, and CSTO.

Iran’s Membership in Alternative International Organizations

Iran’s integration into China and Russia-led international organizations has been a central pillar of its strategy to counter US sanctions and diplomatic isolation. This strategy has accelerated significantly in recent years as Iran sought alternatives to Western-dominated international institutions.

BRICS Membership and Economic Integration

Iran officially became a full member of BRICS on January 1, 2024, joining Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in what has become an increasingly important economic and political bloc. Iran’s inclusion in BRICS was seen as a significant victory for Tehran’s efforts to overcome the impact of US sanctions and end its international isolation. The organization, which now represents roughly 40% of the world’s population and a significant portion of global GDP, offered Iran access to alternative financial systems and trade networks.

For Iran, BRICS membership promised several key benefits: increased legitimacy on the international stage despite domestic unrest and international criticism, access to growing economies for trade and investment, and participation in alternative financial mechanisms that could bypass US-dominated systems like SWIFT. The organization’s emphasis on challenging unilateral sanctions and promoting multipolarity aligned perfectly with Iran’s strategic objectives.

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Engagement

Iran has also been deeply engaged with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which includes China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and several Central Asian states. The SCO, originally focused on security cooperation and counter-terrorism, has expanded to include economic cooperation and represents another avenue for Iran to integrate with non-Western international systems.

The SCO’s emphasis on mutual security and non-interference in internal affairs has provided Iran with a forum to develop relationships with regional powers and gain support for its positions on various international issues. Iran’s participation in SCO activities has been part of its broader strategy to develop what Iranian officials describe as attempts to create a new international order that challenges US hegemony.

CSTO and Security Considerations

While Iran is not a full member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is dominated by Russia and includes several former Soviet states, it has developed significant security relationships with CSTO members, particularly Russia. These relationships have included military cooperation, arms sales, and coordination on regional security issues.

The CSTO’s mutual defense provisions and its role as a counterweight to NATO in the post-Soviet space have made it an important reference point for understanding how collective security arrangements might respond to attacks on states aligned with Russia and China.

Immediate Responses from BRICS, SCO, and CSTO

The immediate aftermath of the US strikes has revealed both the limitations and the complexities of these alternative international organizations in responding to direct military action against one of their members.

Russia, as a key leader in all three organizations, had previously warned the United States against striking Iran. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated that such actions would “radically destabilise the Middle East” and warned of potential nuclear catastrophe from strikes on nuclear facilities. Russia’s response reflects its broader strategic competition with the United States and its interest in maintaining Iran as an ally in this competition.

However, the actual Russian response to the strikes has been more cautious than might have been expected. While condemning the attacks through diplomatic channels, Russia has not indicated any intention to provide direct military support to Iran or to escalate the conflict with the United States. This measured response reflects the reality that despite their strategic partnership, Russia is not prepared to risk direct confrontation with the US over Iran.

China’s response has been characteristically focused on diplomatic solutions and stability. Chinese officials have emphasized that “if the Middle East is unstable, the world will not be at peace,” reflecting China’s broader concerns about global economic and political stability. China’s approach demonstrates its interest in maintaining Iran as a strategic partner while avoiding direct confrontation with the United States.

China’s position is complicated by its significant economic interests in Middle Eastern stability and its ongoing trade relationships with the United States. While China supports Iran within BRICS and SCO frameworks, it has been careful not to provide the kind of direct military support that would escalate tensions with Washington.

Indian Divergence and BRICS Unity Challenges

India’s response has highlighted one of the key challenges facing these alternative international organizations: divergent national interests among members. Reports indicate that India “did not participate in the discussions” on the Israel-Iran conflict within SCO frameworks, demonstrating New Delhi’s reluctance to be drawn into conflicts that don’t serve its national interests.

India’s position reflects its complex relationships within these organizations. While India values BRICS and SCO membership for economic and strategic reasons, it maintains important relationships with the United States and Israel that complicate its ability to provide unconditional support to Iran. This divergence demonstrates that BRICS unity on major international crises cannot be assumed.

Strategic Implications for Alternative International Organizations

The US strikes on Iran and the responses from BRICS, SCO, and CSTO members reveal several critical limitations and challenges for these organizations as alternatives to Western-dominated international institutions.

One of the most significant revelations from this crisis is the limited nature of collective security provisions within these organizations. Unlike NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, neither BRICS nor SCO includes binding security commitments that would require members to defend each other against external attack. While CSTO does include mutual defense provisions, Iran is not a member, and even CSTO members have shown reluctance to invoke these provisions in conflicts that might escalate with major powers.

This limitation reflects a fundamental challenge for these organizations in providing the kind of security guarantees that would make them genuine alternatives to Western security arrangements. The absence of effective collective security mechanisms means that members remain vulnerable to individual pressure and attack from major powers like the United States.

The crisis has also highlighted tensions between proclaimed solidarity and actual national interests within these organizations. While BRICS and SCO members have expressed general support for multipolarity and resistance to unilateral sanctions, their willingness to bear economic or political costs to support Iran has proven limited. When faced with the actual costs of confronting US power, members have shown a tendency to prioritize their own national interests over organizational solidarity.

The US strikes on Iran occur against a backdrop of extensive economic sanctions that have significantly limited Iran’s ability to benefit from BRICS and SCO membership. While these organizations have developed some alternative financial mechanisms and trade arrangements, they have not proven sufficient to fully offset the impact of US sanctions.

This reality demonstrates another limitation of these alternative organizations: their inability to fully shield members from US economic pressure. Despite representing a significant portion of the global economy, BRICS and SCO have not been able to create truly independent economic systems that can operate entirely outside US influence.

Long-term Implications for Global Order

The US strikes on Iran and the responses from alternative international organizations have significant implications for the evolution of the international system and the ongoing competition between Western-led institutions and their alternatives.

One likely consequence of this crisis is an acceleration of efforts to strengthen alternative international organizations and reduce dependence on Western systems. The strikes demonstrate the vulnerability of states that challenge US hegemony while remaining integrated into US-dominated economic and security systems.

This could lead to intensified efforts to develop independent financial systems, alternative trade mechanisms, and more robust collective security arrangements within BRICS, SCO, and similar organizations. The crisis may serve as a wake-up call for these organizations about the need for more concrete and binding commitments to mutual support.

The crisis represents a critical test of the concept of multipolarity that has been central to the rhetoric of BRICS and SCO. The limited response to the US strikes suggests that genuine multipolarity—where multiple centers of power can effectively balance each other—remains elusive. The United States demonstrated its continued ability to act unilaterally against major regional powers without facing effective opposition from alternative power centers.

This reality may lead to a reassessment of strategies within these organizations and potentially to more aggressive efforts to develop capabilities that could actually constrain US action. Alternatively, it might lead to recognition that challenging US hegemony directly carries costs that most states are unwilling to bear.

Regional Security Architecture

In the Middle East specifically, the US strikes may accelerate efforts to develop regional security arrangements that operate outside Western frameworks. Iran’s relationships with BRICS and SCO members could evolve into more concrete security partnerships, particularly with Russia and China.

However, the crisis has also demonstrated the limits of these relationships. Regional powers will need to decide whether to risk confrontation with the United States to support Iran or to accept US dominance in regional security affairs. The answers to these questions will significantly shape the future security architecture of the Middle East.

Tags:

Leave a Reply