In the latest episode of the Think BRICS podcast, host Anastacia G. delivered a sweeping, provocative critique of the June 13 Israeli strikes on Iran, asserting they mark the true beginning of a global struggle between Western hegemony and an emerging multipolar world order. Far from targeting nuclear security, Anastacia argues, the attacks represent a calculated effort to cripple the BRICS alliance by targeting its energy core—Iran.
“This wasn’t about uranium. It was about the petrodollar,” she declares.
Speaking in the aftermath of canceled travel plans to Tehran—where she was scheduled to report on the DeBlock blockchain conference—Anastacia’s commentary blends personal experience with geopolitical analysis. Her central claim: the strikes on Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility were designed to derail Iran’s integration into BRICS, the growing economic bloc that now includes several of the world’s top energy exporters.
According to Anastacia, Iran’s 2024 accession to BRICS fundamentally altered global energy politics. With 9.5% of the world’s oil and 12% of its gas reserves, Iran represents not only a key supplier but also a symbolic pillar of non-Western cooperation. In her view, the expanded BRICS threatens the 50-year-old petrodollar system by encouraging energy trade outside the U.S. dollar—a move she believes Western powers will not tolerate.
“When over half the world starts trading outside the dollar,” she explains, “Washington’s sanctions become worthless paper.”
Anastacia connects the military strike with broader strategy. Referencing reports by journalist Pepe Escobar and public remarks by Donald Trump, she suggests U.S. and Israeli coordination intended to disrupt Iran’s role in Eurasian integration. She points to the International North-South Transport Corridor and BRICS energy initiatives like the proposed Iran-Russia gas hub as examples of infrastructure threatening Western control.
The podcast also questions the neutrality of international institutions. Anastacia claims IAEA inspections were “intelligence missions” that enabled Israeli precision strikes. Following the attacks, Iran announced it would no longer cooperate with IAEA nuclear oversight, a move she frames as proof of betrayal rather than aggression.
Throughout, Anastacia casts Iran not as an aggressor but as a keystone in a rising multipolar order. She suggests that Western fears stem less from nuclear development and more from Iran’s ability to anchor a new global economic model, one outside the reach of Western banking and military power.
“This is pattern recognition, not coincidence,” she argues, referencing a history of Western actions including the U.S. assassination of General Qassem Soleimani.
The podcast also critiques the structural weaknesses of BRICS, especially its lack of military coordination. In Anastacia’s words, BRICS must evolve from a “liquid organization” to a structured alliance capable of deterring aggression—or risk being dismantled, member by member.
She warns that without such change, “the West will pick them off one by one.”
The energy data shared paints a picture of long-term transformation. BRICS nations now supply 36.4% of global primary energy, a figure expected to reach 45% by 2040. Projects like the Markan gas hub and Turkmenistan swap routes, she says, represent a non-Western energy framework entirely beyond U.S. and EU control.
In this context, the Israeli strikes appear, in Anastacia’s framing, not as a tactical maneuver against nuclear proliferation but as a last-ditch effort to preserve a dying unipolar world.
“By attacking a BRICS member,” she concludes, “the West may have just accelerated the very multipolarity they sought to prevent.”
While her views challenge conventional media narratives, Anastacia is careful to root her claims in data and named sources. Still, she admits the stakes are monumental: If Russia and China choose not to support Iran, BRICS may falter. If they do, “we are looking at World War Three.”
The podcast ends not with reassurance, but with a stark warning.
“What happens next,” Anastacia says, “will determine whether we live in a world dominated by one superpower—or balanced among many.”
As the mainstream continues to debate nuclear enrichment and regional stability, Think BRICS offers an alternate lens: one that sees in Iran’s bombed infrastructure not the fear of weapons, but the fear of economic independence.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni5q1YKOoJM