top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger...

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger geopolitical churn in which alliances, energy, trade, currencies and economic coercion are becoming interconnected. India finds itself almost at its centre. The emerging Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan security equation deserves particular attention. Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial and energy influence; Türkiye possesses considerable military strength, NATO experience and an expanding defence industry; Pakistan brings a large military establishment and nuclear capability with the open support of Washington. Any arrangement containing a collective-defence commitment naturally acquires significance beyond ordinary diplomatic cooperation. Alongside it, another strategic convergence has gradually developed among India, Israel and the UAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as a formal military alliance. Yet geopolitics does not operate through defence treaties alone. India's extensive defence and technology relationship with Israel, its rapidly expanding economic and strategic partnership with the UAE, and the UAE-Israel relationship following the Abraham Accords have created considerable common ground. I2U2—bringing together India, Israel, the UAE and the United States—added another institutional dimension. Thus, without necessarily becoming opposing military camps, two interesting strategic formations are visible across West Asia: Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan and the looser India–UAE–Israel convergence. Balancing Challenge India faces a similar balancing challenge. The Gulf is not a distant geopolitical theatre for New Delhi. Nearly nine million Indians live and work there. India's energy security, investments, trade and remittance flows are closely connected with the region. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor also requires relative stability across this geography. Polarisation in West Asia can therefore rapidly become an Indian economic and strategic problem. There is another question Indian planners cannot ignore. If a future India-Pakistan confrontation escalates, how would any collective-defence commitment involving Pakistan be interpreted by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye? It would be alarmist to assume that either country would automatically enter a conflict against India. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has substantial economic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with New Delhi. Nevertheless, defence planners are paid to examine possibilities before they become crises. While these equations develop in India's neighbourhood, economic pressure is emerging from Washington. The US Senate has voted 86–11 for legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia by targeting major purchasers of Russian energy. The measure could authorise tariffs reaching 100 per cent against goods from countries continuing large-scale purchases of Russian oil and gas, with India among those potentially exposed. China is powerful enough to shrug off similar challenges from the West." However this does not mean that America has already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on India. Further legislative steps remain necessary, and presidential waiver provisions are important. But the overwhelming Senate vote carries a political message that New Delhi cannot dismiss. Tariffs are no longer merely tools of trade protection; they have become instruments of geopolitical coercion. Washington's argument is understandable: revenues from Russian petroleum help sustain Moscow's economy during the Ukraine war, and reducing those revenues increases pressure on Russia. But in that case what about European countries who too were/are customers of Russian oil? India's question is equally legitimate: who should determine where India purchases the energy required by more than 1.4 billion people? If Russian crude remains commercially advantageous and helps contain domestic energy costs, New Delhi cannot reasonably be expected to make every energy decision according to another country's geopolitical priorities. Strategic partnership cannot become strategic obedience. This is where BRICS enters the larger picture. India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and will host its leaders at an unusually sensitive moment. BRICS is no longer merely the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its expansion has considerably increased its demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. More importantly, discussions around BRICS increasingly touch a sensitive nerve in Washington: alternative payment mechanisms, local-currency trade, development finance and the possibility of gradually reducing dependence upon the dollar-dominated international financial system. The BRICS Summit this time is poised to take some decisive steps which may affect western interests especially US. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Unending War

The collapse of the United States-Iran ceasefire in less than a month is a stark reminder that peace in West Asia has become a remarkably perishable commodity. The ink on the ceasefire with Iran had scarcely dried before missiles are once again crossing the Gulf as oil tankers flee the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump’s triumphalist declaration last month that Iran had accepted an “unconditional surrender” has aged with astonishing speed.


The latest cycle of escalation was almost preordained. Iran struck commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington retaliated with attacks on more than 80 Iranian targets and restored crippling oil sanctions. Tehran answered by targeting American military installations in Bahrain and Kuwait. Once again, each side believes escalation demonstrates strength, even as it steadily reduces the space for negotiation.


The flaw lay in the agreement itself. It addressed symptoms rather than causes. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for sanctions relief created an uneasy commercial bargain but ignored the larger strategic contest involving Israel, Hezbollah and Iran's regional ambitions. A ceasefire that leaves the principal combatants pursuing contradictory military objectives is deferred conflict.


The consequences extend far beyond the Gulf. Nearly a fifth of the world's traded crude oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Even without a complete blockade, heightened risks push insurance premiums higher, directly affecting oil prices, which have already begun to climb. Financial markets, already grappling with slow growth and persistent inflation, now confront another geopolitical shock.


For India, the implications are particularly severe. Despite diversifying its energy basket, the country remains heavily dependent on imported crude, much of it originating in or transiting through the Gulf. Higher oil prices threaten to widen the current account deficit, weaken the rupee and strain government finances already balancing welfare commitments with ambitious infrastructure spending. Inflation, which policymakers have so far fought hard to contain, could once again become stubbornly entrenched.


Dearer crude means more expensive petrol and diesel, higher freight charges, rising food prices and increased costs for everything from airline tickets to household essentials. Businesses face shrinking margins while consumers absorb yet another round of inflation that has nothing to do with domestic policy failures.


The tragedy is that none of the principal actors appears capable of recognising this wider cost. Washington continues to mistake military punishment for strategic resolution. Tehran clings to maritime coercion as leverage. Israel remains convinced that only sustained military pressure guarantees its security. Collectively, they are engineering strategic catastrophe.


The world has seen this script too many times in recent months. The Strait of Hormuz has become the global economy’s most dangerous choke point. And the greatest casualty of this renewed conflict is the fragile economic stability upon which billions of ordinary people depend.

Comments

bottom of page