Hormuz, Oil Prices, Global Economy

This article was originally written in Persian and published in Khaama Press on March 18, 2026. This English version is a translation by the author

The Trump administration‚s decision to enter into direct war with the Islamic Republic of Iran without obtaining formal authorization from Congress stands as one of the most controversial and high-risk foreign policy choices made by the United States in recent years.

This move not only pushed the Middle East into a new stage of tension and military confrontation, but its consequences are now clearly visible in the global economy, energy markets, and international geopolitical equations.

Joel Rubin, a U.S. foreign policy analyst, described the unprecedented nature of the event: „We’ve never had a war where the president didn’t explain his objective, and there wasn’t any debate in Congress. None of that happened.“
The absence of institutional processes has raised fundamental questions about the legitimacy and long-term consequences of this military intervention.
The escalation of war between Iran on one side and the open alliance of the United States and Israel on the other has produced a crisis whose effects extend far beyond the region’s borders.

As military attacks, reciprocal threats, and troop movements continue across parts of the Middle East, this crisis has rapidly become one of the most important and complex sources of instability in global politics and economics.

This dangerous confrontation is not merely a limited military clash; it has developed within a backdrop of accumulated political, security, and geopolitical rivalries that have built up among these actors over decades.
What distinguishes this round of tension is its coalition nature. In an unguarded moment, the U.S. Secretary of State admitted: „We knew Israel was going to act. We knew this would lead to attacks on American forces.“
Although he immediately tried to retract the statement, the admission revealed prior coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv.

At the same time, the strategic influence of Israel on White House decision-making can be traced in numerous analyses.

Trita Parsi, an analyst of Iranian affairs, emphasized the missed diplomatic opportunities: „There was an agreement on the table far more attractive than the JCPOA. Instead of declaring victory, Trump declared war.“

CNN‚s veteran journalist Christiane Amanpour highlighted Israel’s role in closing the window for negotiations, arguing that Tel Aviv essentially did not want any agreement at all.

Renowned journalist Azadeh Moaveni revealed deeper dimensions of this rivalry: „A strong and unified Iran even if democratic would truly be a nightmare for Israel.“

The outcome of this perspective, at least in these analyses, is that the issue is not limited to the Islamic Republic itself. Rather, any stable, independent, and non-isolated Iran could be perceived as a strategic problem for Israel. Meanwhile, the European Union has consistently tried to present itself as the „elder“ of the international family the one that advises, mediates, and sacrifices morality for interests.

Yet every crisis in the Middle East strips away the mask of this self-appointed elder. The reality is that Europe, in the face of Washington and Tel Aviv, plays no role beyond saying „yes.“

When the United States disrupts regional order, spills blood, and wages war, Europe softens the language. When Israel bombs Gaza or Iran and commits genocide in Gaza, Brussels dims the lights and closes its eyes. And when the victim reacts in self-defense, the European Union arrives with sanctions and sermons. This bitter truth is not an insult, but a reading of reality one that has been repeated time and again in practice.

Therefore, this time the victim is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is not as easy a target as Gaza, and it will remain stuck in the throat of Israel and its coalition.
The continuation of this conflict could become a complex challenge for the U.S. government. On one hand, rising political and economic costs, along with domestic pressures inside the United States, may make it difficult to sustain this path. On the other hand, a quick exit from the crisis is not easily possible for Washington.

Such a move could carry wide-ranging geopolitical and reputational consequences for the country. Trump dreams of forcing the Islamic Republic into surrender, but in practice he faces threats of retaliation from Iran’s new leadership. The Islamic Republic has appointed the son of its previous leader as successor. In my view, this decision is a direct response to Trump’s long-standing desire for revenge.

Alongside the political and security dimensions, the economic effects of this crisis are also being observed globally in dramatic ways. The rise in oil and energy prices, fluctuations in financial markets, and disruptions in certain regional trade routes show that this conflict is not merely a regional crisis, but has become a factor influencing the global economy. Higher energy prices have created new economic pressures even in the world’s largest economies, including the United States, and have heightened concerns about the stability of global energy markets.

On this basis, the article adopts an analytical approach to examine the war between Iran, the United States, and Israel, as well as its regional and economic consequences. The main focus of the article is on the roots of this confrontation, the formation of regional alliances, and the impact of the crisis on the global economy and regional trade routes. But beyond geopolitical equations, attention must also be given to the human outlook of this crisis.

Kim Ghattas, a Middle East analyst, warns: „I fear the Iranian people will not only endure the war, but in the end they will not achieve what they aspire to a more just and equitable government that represents the will of the people.“
This concern is a reminder that behind every geopolitical equation lies the fate of ordinary people, who pay the heavy price of power struggles.

The direct military confrontation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S.–Israel alliance is the result of an accumulation of strategic, security, and political factors that have developed over decades.
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, deep concern over Iran’s expanding regional influence particularly its missile program and cross-border activities is regarded as an existential threat.

On the other side, Washington in recent years has pursued a „maximum pressure“ strategy, imposing sweeping economic sanctions in an effort to restrict Iran’s capabilities and shift the regional balance of power in favor of itself and its traditional allies.

Jeremy Bowen, BBC‚s international editor, analyzed the current war within a historical and geographic context: „Every Gulf war has planted the seeds of the next war.“ He explained: The first war in 1991 kept Saddam in power. The establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia angered bin Laden and gave birth to al-Qaeda. The second war in 2003 removed Saddam and created a power vacuum that both the Islamic Republic and ISIS sought to fill.
Now, with the third war, the United States aims to neutralize the outcome of the second. Bowen warns that ISIS’s successors are already waiting to exploit this crisis. His logic in summary: U.S. interventions in the region have repeatedly replaced one problem with another each time at greater cost and with a larger crisis.

Azadeh Moaveni, an Iranian-British analyst, sees more personal motives behind America’s presence in this war. She writes in Foreign Policy: „Trump was seeking a historic legacy equal to Reagan’s. Venezuela ended quickly, and Iran could have been the crown jewel of his legacy.“

Trita Parsi adds: „He came to believe that every decision others said was impossible, he proved right, and everyone else proved wrong.“

The result of this dangerous belief? Foreign policy has turned into a street brawl. The White House even released a video that mixed real images of the war the same war killing civilians with footage from a combat video game.

Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of War, sounded like a young man showing off his computer game to friends: „We’re hitting them while they’re down. Death and destruction. We’ve only just begun.“ This language is not the language of a military commander. A personal motive behind the assassination of the Islamic Republic’s leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, was also revealed by Trump himself in an interview with ABC News: „I struck him before he could strike me. They tried twice. Well, I hit first.“
And what was the immediate response? The Islamic Republic appointed the son of that same leader as successor.

Joel Rubin explains: „Whether you are religious or not, there is something called blood revenge.“

Christiane Amanpour adds: „I think this is a kind of middle-finger gesture.“
Trump dreamed of unconditional surrender, but now he faces a leadership whose decisions are overshadowed by the logic of revenge.
Amanpour further explains that Masoud Pezeshkian apologized for attacks on Gulf infrastructure. Trump took that as a sign of surrender. But then the Revolutionary Guard silenced him and launched more missiles. Her conclusion: hopes of strengthening pragmatists against hardliners have backfired, and now the Revolutionary Guard holds the upper hand.

In my view, the meaning of Amanpour’s words is this: Iran’s attacks on regional countries were not unexpected. Before the war, Iran had already visited each of the Gulf states and issued warnings. Yet the United States was once again „surprised.“

Kim Ghattas, a Lebanese journalist based in Beirut, completes the picture from another angle: „Iranian officials once boasted that they controlled four Arab capitals. Now the Israeli prime minister boasts that he is fighting on seven fronts.“ And the conclusion: „If until now we lived under the regional architecture shaped by Iran’s revolution, we have now entered Netanyahu’s Middle East.“

Even so, here a subtle but important difference emerges among sources. Bowen’s analysis suggests that Israel does not appear overly worried about Iran sinking into violence and chaos perhaps even seeing it as a desirable outcome. Ghattas, however, is more cautious, saying it is difficult to believe that anyone truly wants such disorder in the long run.

This distinction matters, because one perspective highlights Israel’s opportunistic logic, while the other underscores the costs and instability that such logic entails. A shift in power has occurred. The question is whether Trump himself realizes what service he has rendered to Netanyahu.

Risky decisions and their consequences: Within this strategic context, the Trump administration’s decision to enter into military conflict with Iran One of the most evident factors shaping this event can be found in Israel’s political influence and pressure on the Trump administration. Antony Blinken, former U.S. Secretary of State under Joe Biden, revealed in an interview with Big Tech Daily: “Israel tried to force Obama to bomb Iran, arguing that if America did not cooperate, Israel would do it with or without the U.S. Obama resisted this pressure, but Trump surrendered to the same tactic. They have the Epstein files.”

Although the American media often portraying itself as the unrivaled champion of free speech has long faced unwritten restrictions when it comes to criticizing Israel, the recent war with Iran has shifted these taboos in both media and political alignments.

Now, a growing number of journalists and political figures have abandoned the unwritten rule of avoiding criticism of Israel. In both official and informal statements, it has become clear that nearly three-quarters of Americans oppose this war and view Donald Trump as the main instigator, acting under Israeli pressure.

The current war between Iran and the U.S.-Israel alliance is not merely the product of a short-term strategic calculation. It is the outcome of accumulated, multi-layered factors: the pressure of powerful lobbies, miscalculations by leaders, and disregard for international legal norms.

While the architects of this war had counted on a quick victory, they now face a far more complex reality one that has not only reshaped the regional balance of power but also challenged America’s domestic political cohesion and its transatlantic relationships. without obtaining formal authorization from Congress was a decisive turning point, yet one filled with risk.

This decision was largely based on the assumption that a pre-planned military operation would produce a short war with a swift victory.

However, the region’s complex political and military dynamics, along with warnings from some advisers about its long-term and uncontrollable consequences, quickly cast doubt on the initial calculations.

Reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convinced Trump that the war would achieve its desired outcome within one or two days, and that even through the physical elimination of Iranian leaders, it could spark a popular uprising and regime change.
Yet field realities quickly proved that the crisis was not as manageable as imagined, and that both Israel and the United States had made a strategic miscalculation about the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On the other hand, the U.S. government faces multiple domestic and international constraints.

Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders, have strongly condemned these attacks in separate statements and have repeatedly warned the Trump administration about their destructive consequences.

In his latest post on the social network X (formerly Twitter), Sanders stated: “We cannot return to a world where power determines right. The U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran undermine international law and push the world toward greater instability and chaos.”

These remarks show that Trump’s military action has created new divisions and alignments even within American politics, and that a significant portion of public opinion and political elites oppose this hasty move.

Chris Murphy, Democratic senator from Connecticut, in a television interview, when asked “Why are we at war with Iran?” responded bluntly: “Because Israel dragged us into this war.”

Domestic factors within the United States have also played a unique role in shaping and sustaining this crisis. By bypassing Congress, Trump now faces mounting political costs, public pressure, and the operational complexities of war. Any regret over this decision and the difficulty of exiting the crisis quickly have turned the current situation into a complex geopolitical and economic challenge.

One of the most evident factors shaping this event can be found in Israel’s political influence and pressure on the Trump administration.
Antony Blinken, former U.S. Secretary of State under Joe Biden, revealed in an interview with Big Tech Daily: “Israel tried to force Obama to bomb Iran, arguing that if America did not cooperate, Israel would do it with or without the U.S. Obama resisted this pressure, but Trump surrendered to the same tactic. They have the Epstein files.”

Although the American media often portraying itself as the unrivaled champion of free speech has long faced unwritten restrictions when it comes to criticizing Israel, the recent war with Iran has shifted these taboos in both media and political alignments.

Now, a growing number of journalists and political figures have abandoned the unwritten rule of avoiding criticism of Israel. In both official and informal statements, it has become clear that nearly three-quarters of Americans oppose this war and view Donald Trump as the main instigator, acting under Israeli pressure.

The current war between Iran and the U.S.-Israel alliance is not merely the product of a short-term strategic calculation. It is the outcome of accumulated, multi-layered factors: the pressure of powerful lobbies, miscalculations by leaders, and disregard for international legal norms.

While the architects of this war had counted on a quick victory, they now face a far more complex reality one that has not only reshaped the regional balance of power but also challenged America’s domestic political cohesion and its transatlantic relationships.

The widening scope of war in the Middle East and Iran’s direct confrontation with the U.S.-Israel alliance has not only reshaped regional security equations but has also delivered a profound shock to the global economy.
On March 5, 2026, Joseph Briggs, Megan Petrus, and Sarah Dangas, in an analysis based on standard macroeconomic models and the “empirical rules” of Goldman Sachs, outlined possible scenarios for this crisis.
In their article, centered on the theme of “higher inflation and lower growth,” they examined four warning scenarios and predicted the worst possible outcomes.

As of today, when this piece is being written, all four scenarios have materialized: oil prices have surged above $100 per barrel, global inflation has spiked dramatically, economic growth has nearly stalled, and most importantly, the Strait of Hormuz whose closure was predicted in the worst scenarios has now become almost completely shut to energy transit.

One of the central themes of the analysis was the “tightening of global financial conditions,” which has now materialized in ways beyond expectations.
Borrowing costs in international markets have risen sharply, and multiple reports indicate widespread withdrawals from bank deposits across the world particularly in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

Investment in Arab states of the region has not only declined significantly, but can almost be described as having come to a halt. Reliable reports suggest that major investors have not only left the Gulf states, but the trend of capital flight continues.

This situation has placed regional economic policymakers in a difficult dilemma: on one hand, to prevent further capital outflow they are compelled to adopt stricter monetary policies; on the other hand, those very policies act as barriers to attracting new investment.

Nafiseh Kohnavard, BBC’s international correspondent, reported from Iraq: at least several major international banks including Citibank in the UAE and HSBC Bank UK in Qatar have closed their branches and are attempting to withdraw their staff from these countries. These developments have dealt an irreparable blow to states that, over decades, had spent vast sums to attract investment and position themselves as regional financial hubs.

Iran’s war with Israel and the United States has triggered an energy shock on a global scale, extending beyond the oil producing countries of the Gulf to Europe and the United States itself. Economists describe this global recession as unprecedented in severity since World War II. The extraordinary surge in oil prices in European markets has imposed an additional inflationary burden on the continent’s economy.

Meanwhile, China being the largest importer of oil from Iran has been hit hard. The continuation of the war and the intensification of sanctions have seriously disrupted Beijing’s energy imports from Tehran, forcing the country to secure supplies from far more expensive markets.

The current Middle East crisis, by creating a global energy shock, has unleashed a chain of economic consequences stretching from Gulf financial markets to European inflation and China’s economic challenges.

Regional policymakers now face a difficult dilemma: the war is driving out investments that had been attracted to Gulf states during years of economic stability, yet any compromise could endanger their internal security and stability.
What is clear is that whatever the outcome of this crisis, the global energy map and the economic balance of power will be reshaped for years to come.

The Middle East crisis, with all its dimensions, has brought relative gains to certain countries; the Russian Federation is among the few actors that have profited from it. The global rise in oil prices has significantly boosted Moscow’s oil revenues and blunted the impact of Western sanctions.
More importantly, Washington’s shift in military priorities has played to Russia’s advantage. With the outbreak of war in the Middle East, a substantial portion of weapons and military equipment that had been destined for Ukraine has instead been redirected to the Gulf region.

This change in priorities has reduced military pressure on Russia along the Ukrainian front and effectively granted Moscow a strategic breathing space. Thus, while the Iran, U.S. and Israel war has inflicted heavy damage on the global economy and Western allies, it has indirectly benefited Russia.

As the U.S.-Israel coalition’s war with Iran enters its third week, the White House has yet to present a coherent narrative of the conflict’s ultimate objectives. Trump’s more optimistic supporters interpret this ambiguity as part of his strategy, but a growing number of political leaders, analysts, and international affairs experts describe Washington’s confusion as real, troubling, and unprecedented.
Beyond the war’s undeclared goals, one undeniable reality is its geo-economic consequences for the global economy centered on the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most vital energy chokepoint.

In its most authoritative report on the importance of this strategic passage, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) identified the Strait of Hormuz as the most vital energy transit route in the world.
According to the report, Hormuz accounts for:

1. 38% of global crude oil trade

2. 29% of global gas liquids trade

3. 19% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade

Each day, between 20 to 22 million barrels of oil pass through this strategic strait.
What makes this passage entirely irreplaceable is the absolute dependence of regional exporting countries on it. Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia have concentrated nearly all of their oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, leaving them with no viable alternative maritime route for energy exports other than the Strait of Hormuz.

Economic experts consider disruption in the Strait of Hormuz to be one of the most catastrophic scenarios imaginable in the modern era.
In the short-term disruption scenario (lasting a few days to weeks), predicted consequences included sharply higher insurance costs, a surge in oil prices, delays in energy transport, and instability in financial markets.
Now, as the war enters its third week, all of these predictions have come true: global oil prices have surpassed $100 per barrel.

In the long-term disruption scenario already unfolding we are witnessing energy shortages in Asia, economic recession in importing countries, shifts in global investment flows, and rising prices of goods and raw materials worldwide.

Iran’s Chabahar Port – With direct access to the Indian Ocean, it is suitable for trade with India, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, but it was not designed for Gulf oil exports. Its current capacity is limited, focused mainly on containers and general goods. Moreover, Chabahar provides only partial access for Afghanistan, India, and Central Asia, and lacks efficiency for Europe and West Asia.

UAE’s Fujairah Port – The country’s only major port outside the Strait of Hormuz, connected via the Habshan Fujairah pipeline, which transfers Abu Dhabi’s oil at a capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day. Yet the port has not been immune to Iranian missile strikes; by the time of this analysis, Iran had attacked it twice, nearly halting exports. Fujairah covers only part of the UAE’s oil and is ineffective for Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s East–West Pipeline (Petroline) – With a capacity of about 5 million barrels per day, it carries oil from the Gulf to the Red Sea (Yanbu Port). However, it serves only Saudi Arabia, not other regional states. Moreover, this pipeline has also been targeted by Iranian missile and drone attacks, undermining Western hopes of bypassing Hormuz.

Iraq–Turkey Pipeline (Kirkuk–Ceyhan) – This line carries northern Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean but faces serious limitations. Southern Iraqi oil (Basra) remains dependent on Hormuz. The pipeline’s capacity is limited and often disrupted by regional insecurity. It too has been struck by Iranian drones, leaving little hope for quick resumption.

Iran–Turkey–Europe Land Routes – While suitable for non-oil goods and not reliant on Hormuz, they are not designed for transporting crude oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG & LPG). Their overland transport capacity is extremely limited.

In its conclusion, UNCTAD stresses that the Strait of Hormuz is a vital and virtually irreplaceable route for global energy trade. If Hormuz is disrupted:

• Energy prices will surge

• Global trade will face serious disruption

• Transportation and insurance costs will multiply

• Asian countries (China, India, Japan, South Korea) will suffer the greatest damage

Therefore, alternative routes can only cover a small fraction of global demand.

NBC News, in its analytical report on the West’s vulnerabilities from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, highlighted vital goods that enter Western supply chains through this route: aluminum, rubber, fertilizer, sugar, plastics, electronics, and batteries.

The consequences of this dependency include:

• Rising aluminum prices, which increase production costs for cars, airplanes, and construction in the U.S. and Europe

• Disruptions in fertilizer and agricultural inputs, leading to higher food prices in Europe and America

• Dependence of Western pharmaceutical and electronics industries on Asian raw materials that transit Hormuz

The specialized outlet Investopedia published an analytical article showing how disruption in Hormuz shakes financial markets in London, Europe, and the U.S. London, as one of the world’s largest energy trading hubs, now faces heightened financial risk across Europe. With 30% of the world’s fertilizer passing through Hormuz, food prices in the West have risen. Meanwhile, higher aluminum and plastic costs have driven up production expenses in the automotive, aerospace, and packaging industries. The article emphasizes that the West is “highly vulnerable to the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Ultimately, no alternative to the Strait of Hormuz can restore the pre-war order of the global economy. Although the direct damage is concentrated in the region, the West (America and Europe) suffers broader indirect consequences: rising energy prices, higher costs of industrial raw materials, disruption of global supply chains, mounting inflation, and pressure on the automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical, and agricultural sectors. This is why CNBC has described the situation as “the turning point of the global economy” a moment when a regional crisis overturns the world’s geo-economic calculations and, regardless of geographic distance, becomes a pervasive challenge for all actors in the international system.

The current war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S.-Israel alliance is not a simple military confrontation, but rather the outcome of decades of accumulated tension, strategic miscalculations, and disregard for international norms.

Donald Trump, bypassing Congress and ignoring warnings, launched this risky endeavor not to secure America’s national interests but under Israeli influence, with the illusion that a swift victory would bring Iran’s unconditional surrender. In reality, the conflict has turned into a quagmire whose consequences extend beyond the region to the global economy and even Washington’s own allies.
Iran, even if its leaders are targeted, is not a nation that surrenders. The logic of blood revenge and national will has brought new leadership determined to resist. Trump dreamed of unconditional capitulation, but now faces a leadership driven by vengeance. Meanwhile, the blunt remarks of Antony Blinken and Chris Murphy exposed Israel’s unprecedented influence over the White House and the deep divisions among American elites and public opinion three quarters of Americans oppose this war and blame Trump for starting it under Israeli pressure.

Economically, Goldman Sachs’ predictions of inflation and global recession have come true. The partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy chokepoint, has sent shockwaves through markets. Gulf states face capital flight and disrupted trade routes, while China, as Iran’s largest oil importer, suffers heavily from energy insecurity. Russia, by contrast, has profited from higher oil prices and reduced military pressure in Ukraine.
The European Union has revealed itself less as an independent actor and more as a passive partner to the U.S. issuing sanctions against the victim while its citizens bear the costs of inflation and energy crisis. This strategic inertia exposes the bitter truth: Europe’s claim to global weight is more rhetoric than reality.

Reports from UNCTAD, NBC, and CNBC underline that Hormuz is irreplaceable. Any long-term disruption destabilizes Western supply chains from aluminum and pharmaceuticals to fertilizer and food driving inflation in America and Europe. CNBC aptly called this moment “the turning point of the global economy.”
Yet beyond geopolitical and economic equations, the human dimension must not be overlooked. Middle East analyst Kim Ghattas warns: “I fear the Iranian people will not only endure the war but also fail to achieve what they long for a fairer government that represents their will.” Her concern, rooted in the suffering of ordinary people, reminds us that behind every geopolitical calculation lies the fate of populations who pay the heavy price of power struggles.

What is clear today is that whatever the outcome, the global energy order and regional balance of power will be reshaped for years to come. Power shifts are inevitable. But the unanswered question remains: does Trump realize what service he has rendered to Netanyahu? And will international actors learn from this experience or must we await the next war, whose seeds are already being sown in the ruins of this crisis? As Jeremy Bowen rightly warned, every Gulf war plants the seeds of the next. Perhaps now is the time to redefine strategies that prioritize peace and stability over destruction and revenge.

Sources:

• Janathan Karl: “Iran operation could last weeks, Trump tells ABC News, saying of Khamenei, ‘I got him before he got me’ “, ABC News

• Joseph Briggs and others: “Global Economic Impacts of the War in Iran“, GS Publishing

• Strait of Hurmuz disruptions: “Implications for global trade and development“, UNCTAD

• Financial Times: “Iran and the chimera of capitulation“

• Alex Abraham: “Beyond bombs and missiles”, GULF NEWS

• Samia Nakhoul: “US-Iran War Triggers Economic Fallout and Security Risks for Gulf States Economic and Security Impacts on Gulf States Amid US-Iran Conflict“ Global Banking & Finance News

• “The US-Iran War: The potential economic impact and how businesses can react“, Thomson Reuters

• JOEL RUBIN: “True Analysis, Not Talking Points“, CNN

• Nafisa Kohnavard: BBCpersian X

📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives.