Neutrality is no longer a strategy

A strategic flashpoint: What the Iran–Israel–U.S. conflict reveals about BRICS+ and the future of global business.

The recent escalation involving Iran, Israel and the United States is not just another geopolitical flare-up. It’s a strategic fork in the road that reveals the limits of bloc politics and the urgency of a more nuanced, regionally grounded business strategy.

The confrontation, fuelled by Iran’s nuclear trajectory and regional power plays, arrives at a moment when BRICS+ is trying to project relevance as an alternative to Western-led institutions. Iran’s 2024 admission—alongside the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia—was framed as a step toward a more multipolar global order. But the crisis has laid bare the grouping's internal contradictions.

China and Russia were quick to criticise U.S. and Israeli actions, positioning themselves as defenders of the Global South. However, other BRICS+ members, including India, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, remained largely silent, signalling not unity but divergence. As this crisis shows, BRICS+ may carry symbolic weight, but it is not a strategic bloc. It lacks cohesion, enforceable commitments and a shared vision.

Shaky BRICS+

The lack of cohesion within BRICS+ matters. For business leaders, bloc assumptions no longer hold. BRICS+ is a platform, not a partnership. Its members pursue divergent national agendas, shaped as much by regional priorities and bilateral pressures as shared goals. The crisis is also a reminder of the resilience and assertiveness of U.S. power. Washington’s backing of Israel and its security footprint in the Middle East remain robust, even as multilateral institutions lose traction.

The fallout is already global. Energy prices are jittery. Sanctions regimes are shifting. Cyber threats are rising. And shipping routes are at risk, again. In this environment, fence-sitting is no longer a viable strategy. Neutrality may protect reputations in times of calm; in moments of fracture, it risks looking like indecision.

South Africa, for example, finds itself squeezed. A founding BRICS member and current G20 participant, it has long advocated multipolarity and Global South solidarity. However, it remains heavily exposed to Western financial systems and trade frameworks. With the G20 presidency soon to pass to the U.S., South Africa’s balancing act is becoming harder to maintain; a cautionary tale for companies attempting the same.

So, what can companies do?

It’s tempting to think there’s little they can do, but vigilance and adaptability suggest otherwise. Here are our suggestions for what business leaders should be doing:

1. Declare your posture: In an age of realignment, ambiguity is risk. Know where you stand and why.

2. Treat blocs as brands, not guarantees: BRICS+ is not NATO. Analyse members individually, not collectively.

3. Embed geopolitics in core strategy: This is a boardroom issue, not just a risk function. Build it into supply chains, capital planning and brand positioning.

   
   

We are moving from a world of cooperative globalisation to one defined by geopolitical contest. Businesses need to be ready to respond clearly, quickly and credibly. This isn’t just a flashpoint, it’s a stress test for global strategy. Companies that recognise the shift, adapt fast and communicate clearly will be shaping the future, not reacting to it.

Key takeaways:

1.     BRICS+ is fractured, not unified: Treat it as a signal of shifting influence, not a stable alliance.

2.     Geopolitics now shapes business: Sanctions, cyber threats and trade disruptions demand board-level attention.

3.     Fence-sitting is risk, not refuge: In a fractured world, clarity of stance builds resilience.

4.     Power is regional, not bloc-based: Strategy must adapt to fragmented alliances and fast-moving flashpoints.