BRICS Members Move to Reduce Reliance on the US Dollar

BRICS leaders have called for reforms to the global governance system, condemned unilateral tariffs and “acts of war”, and backed greater representation for developing countries at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The positions were outlined in the New Delhi Declaration adopted on September 12 at the BRICS Summit in the Indian capital. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the changing world could not be governed through outdated institutions and stressed the need for reforms in representation, responsiveness and rule-making.

The declaration called for a “structural update” of the UNSC, with greater representation for developing countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. China and Russia reiterated support for Brazil and India seeking a greater role at the United Nations, including on the Security Council.

A particularly significant development was the call for BRICS members to increase the use of local currencies in trade among themselves, reducing reliance on the US dollar. This reflects a broader effort to diversify international trade and financial transactions and gradually reduce dependence on the dollar-dominated global system.

BRICS also criticized unilateral tariffs and other trade restrictions, warning that they could disrupt supply chains, hamper global trade and deepen economic disparities. The bloc reaffirmed support for reforming the World Trade Organization to better address the needs of emerging and developing economies.

The declaration strongly condemned terrorism in all its forms and rejected attempts to associate terrorism with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. It also denounced “unilateral acts of war” and emphasized the protection of seafarers and commercial navigation amid continuing military tensions in the Middle East.

The expanding BRICS platform increasingly reflects the aspirations of the Global South for a more representative and multipolar international order.

Is Saudi Arabia Being Attacked to Recognize Israel

The growing friction between US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) surfaced when Washington sought to pressure Riyadh over the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Although the issue was eventually hushed up, US pressure on MBS continued, with Washington increasingly seeking Saudi recognition of Israel.

Israel's devastating military campaign in Gaza, however, complicated the American strategy. For MBS, moving toward normalization with Israel became politically difficult while Palestinians continued to suffer. Riyadh instead maintained that recognition must be linked to Palestinian statehood and a credible two-state solution.

China's mediation of the Saudi-Iran rapprochement delivered another strategic message to Washington. If two traditional regional rivals could overcome decades of hostility through Chinese diplomacy, America's traditional dominance in the Middle East could gradually weaken. The development also demonstrated that Saudi Arabia had alternatives to exclusive dependence on Washington.

When the US-Israeli war against Iran began on February 28, 2026, the regional equation changed dramatically. As Trump decided to escalate the conflict, Iranian retaliation against American military installations and interests across the Gulf became increasingly predictable. Saudi Arabia, with its enormous energy infrastructure and strategic importance, was inevitably exposed.

The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz also threatened oil and gas exports from Gulf Arab states. Attempts to reroute Saudi oil through the Red Sea created additional vulnerabilities, particularly as attacks attributed to the Houthis increased. Drone attacks and threats to oil infrastructure have further complicated Saudi Arabia's security environment.

The conventional explanation is that Iran and its allies are responsible for these attacks. But another question deserves serious examination, who ultimately benefits from keeping Saudi Arabia under sustained security pressure?

Could regional proxy groups be operating in ways that serve a broader strategic objective? The purpose would not necessarily be to destabilize Saudi Arabia, but to increase its dependence on American security guarantees and make closer alignment with Washington appear unavoidable.

The United States has long sought normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. If Riyadh is repeatedly confronted with threats to its oil infrastructure, maritime routes and national security, pressure for a strategic accommodation with Israel could become stronger.

The crucial question, therefore, is not simply who is attacking Saudi Arabia. It is whether insecurity itself is being exploited to influence Riyadh's strategic choices.

Is Saudi Arabia being attacked because of its rivalry with Iran—or is the pressure ultimately intended to push the Kingdom toward recognizing Israel?

Linking Iran with 9/11: A Badly Woven Story

This morning, I burst into laughter when I read a report in The Hill quoting President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth linking the Iran war to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. What an extraordinary attempt to rewrite history!

For nearly a quarter of a century, the world has been told that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, and his al-Qaeda accomplices masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Yet the Trump administration now appears to be drawing Iran into that narrative by suggesting that the Islamic Republic’s hostility toward America is somehow a continuation of the war launched after 9/11.

Hegseth reportedly said that the United States has fought an Islamic theocracy that “cheered on 9/11.” Such a sweeping assertion demands evidence. Hostility toward the United States is not evidence of responsibility for an attack carried out by al-Qaeda. Nor does opposition to American foreign policy establish Iranian involvement in 9/11.

For those born after 9/11, a reminder of history is important. The United States imposed sanctions on Iran soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequently supported Iraq during its nearly eight-year war against Iran. For decades, Washington maintained pressure on Tehran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military deployments, while Israel repeatedly targeted Iranian strategic installations and Iranian nuclear scientists.

Iran has therefore remained in Washington’s crosshairs for nearly half a century. But transforming this long-running confrontation into an extension of the 9/11 war is an entirely different matter.

The timing is equally revealing. Trump has indicated that the war with Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, could continue until the November midterm elections and then “end immediately.” This inevitably raises questions about the political utility of prolonged warfare.

The world should be extremely cautious about historical revisionism. The 9/11 tragedy was used to launch America’s “war on terror,” which lasted nearly two decades. Attempting now to rhetorically associate Iran with that tragedy, without presenting credible evidence of Iranian responsibility, risks turning history into a political instrument.

This is not merely an inaccurate narrative. It is a badly concocted story that deserves scrutiny rather than applause.

PSX benchmark index declines 2.7%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained under pressure during the week ended on September 11, 2026. The benchmark Index declined 4,817 points or 2.7%WoW to close at 170,512 level. Market activity also weakened, with average daily trading volume declining by 17.5%WoW to 801 million shares.

Escalating attacks along key shipping routes by both US and Iran and Houthis targeting Saudi energy facilities, raised concerns about energy supplies and pushed global oil prices higher. Domestically, fuel prices also increased.

On a positive note, Moody’s highlighted that Pakistan absorbed the current conflict shock better than the 2022 crisis, supported by improved macroeconomic indicators.

The Workers’ Remittances in August 2026 rose by 17%YoY to US$3.7 billion.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) rose to US$18.3 billion as of September 4, 2026.

The Prime Minister approved the draft auto policy for FY27-31, although IMF approval remains pending.

RDA inflows rose 58%YoY to US$259 million in August 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF review talks scheduled to start on September 22, 2026, 2) Qatari LNG cargo bound for Pakistan cleared Strait of Hormuz, 3) GoP cuts HSD refining margin cap to US$30/ bbl, 4) Pakistan signs cybersecurity cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, and 5) Pakistan- Australia likely to finalize investment agreement soon.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners (US$7.2 million) and Mutual Funds (US$5.3 million), while the major buyers were Individuals (US$10.8 million) and Companies (US$5.5 million).

Top performing scrips were: PSEL, AICL, and LCI, while the laggards included: PGLC, SSGC, and CHCC.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators.

Upcoming IMF review and monetary policy announcement to remain key near-term catalysts.

A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices from current elevated levels.

Market continues to trade at attractive valuations. The brokerage house forecasts the Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

Top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

 

Trump’s Imprudent Policies Are Making Iran a Bigger Phantom

The latest US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, appears to have produced an outcome very different from what Washington may have anticipated. Despite intense military and economic pressure, Iran has not capitulated. Instead, the conflict seems to have reinforced national cohesion and strengthened Tehran’s determination to resist external coercion.

Iran’s economy has certainly suffered. Years of sanctions have produced weak growth and high inflation, while the war has damaged critical industrial facilities and disrupted trade through the Strait of Hormuz. The IMF has estimated a sharp contraction in Iranian GDP, while inflation and currency depreciation have reached alarming levels. Yet economic pain has not translated into political surrender. Iranian businesses have spent years adapting to sanctions, maintaining substantial inventories and developing alternative trade channels. These practices have provided a degree of resilience even as supply chains and maritime trade have come under severe pressure.

Trump’s repeated appeals to Iranians to rise against their government may also be producing the opposite effect. External pressure can deepen public grievances, but it can simultaneously strengthen nationalist sentiment and resistance to perceived foreign interference. Iran’s leadership has demonstrated an ability to transfer much of the economic burden onto ordinary citizens while preserving the state’s capacity to resist.

There is another, potentially more consequential, dimension. Iranian attacks on US military facilities in Gulf countries have forced Arab states to reconsider the assumptions underlying their security arrangements. If the American military presence cannot prevent attacks on regional assets, questions naturally arise over whether Washington’s security architecture primarily serves Arab interests or Israel.

The Strait of Hormuz presents an equally serious dilemma. Disruptions may constrain Iranian oil exports, but Arab economies are also exposed through attacks on energy infrastructure, US-linked assets and reduced energy exports. A wider disruption extending toward the Red Sea, particularly through Houthi action, could impose an even heavier cost on regional economies.

The paradox is becoming increasingly clear - Washington may be capable of inflicting enormous pain on Iran, but pain alone has not delivered submission. Donald Trump’s imprudent policies may therefore be making Iran a “Bigger Phantom”—not necessarily more powerful, but more resilient, more unpredictable and increasingly costly to contain.

 

Xi’s Washington Visit: A Changing Balance of Power

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s upcoming visit to Washington for a summit with US President Donald Trump on September 24 comes at a critical juncture in global geopolitics. More than a bilateral engagement, the meeting could provide an insight into the changing balance of diplomatic influence between the world’s two largest economies.

Xi is arriving in Washington after an intensive diplomatic outreach covering the SCO, the Middle East and the wider Global South. His message is becoming increasingly clear - China’s foreign relations do not revolve around Washington. Beijing is building partnerships and expanding its diplomatic space while presenting itself as an advocate of dialogue, multilateralism and economic cooperation. The contrast with Washington is striking.

Trump has imposed punitive tariffs on a wide range of US trading partners, including traditional allies. These measures have generated retaliation, uncertainty and diplomatic friction rather than producing a corresponding surge in US exports. The broader issue is that unilateral tariff measures have also been challenged on grounds of their compatibility with the rules-based multilateral trading system.

Trump’s military confrontation with Iran has further complicated America’s international standing. The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy arteries. The resulting disruption has affected oil and gas supplies, raised energy prices and created serious risks for commercial shipping and seafarers.

The crisis has also strained Washington’s relations with its traditional Middle Eastern partners. The China-brokered Saudi-Iran rapprochement had offered an opportunity to reduce regional confrontation. Renewed hostilities have undermined that spirit, leaving regional countries to reassess their dependence on Washington.

Meanwhile, Xi is using diplomacy to demonstrate that China has alternatives. His recent engagement with Egypt, alongside wider relations across Eurasia and the Global South, reinforces Beijing’s claim to a more multipolar international order.

This does not mean China has replaced the United States. America remains a formidable economic, technological and military power. But diplomatic influence cannot be sustained indefinitely through tariffs, pressure and military confrontation.

The Trump-Xi summit is being watched not merely for trade agreements, but for what it reveals about the future architecture of global power. One point is crystal clear; Donald Trump has antagonized relations with most of the countries around the world.

BRICS in Search of Purpose

When Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa expanded BRICS in the 2020s, the grouping appeared poised to become a major pillar of an emerging multipolar order. Today, with 11 full members and 10 partner countries, BRICS has considerable demographic, economic and diplomatic weight. Yet expansion has exposed a fundamental weakness - BRICS is better at expressing dissatisfaction with the existing international system than agreeing on what should replace it.

BRICS is not collapsing. It continues to attract countries seeking greater international influence, diversified partnerships and alternatives—or supplements—to Western-dominated institutions. The real question is whether its expanded membership can be converted into practical influence or whether internal rivalries and geopolitical contradictions will gradually erode its momentum.

The grouping contains democracies, monarchies and authoritarian states; energy exporters and importers; sanctioned countries and close Western partners. India and China remain strategic competitors, while Russia’s war in Ukraine and Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States complicate efforts to establish common security positions. BRICS has neither a collective defence commitment nor an effective mechanism for resolving disputes among its members.

This does not make BRICS irrelevant. Its greater value may lie in functioning as a consultative platform for countries that disagree on major geopolitical issues but cannot afford to ignore one another.

Under India’s 2026 presidency, security has moved higher on the agenda, including terrorism, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, emerging technologies and other non-traditional threats. These areas offer greater scope for practical cooperation than contentious questions surrounding Ukraine, Gaza or US strategic power. Protecting ports, energy supplies, food systems and digital infrastructure can produce tangible benefits without requiring political unanimity.

Economic cooperation offers another opportunity. Despite years of talk about de-dollarization, a common BRICS currency remains unrealistic given members’ divergent monetary systems and political priorities. More achievable goals include expanding local-currency trade, improving cross-border payment systems and strengthening the New Development Bank.

BRICS should also clarify membership rules, distinguish the rights and responsibilities of full members and partners, and streamline decision-making. Consensus can remain essential for major declarations, while willing members should be allowed to pursue voluntary initiatives in infrastructure, food and energy security, climate adaptation, public health, cybersecurity and trade facilitation.

Ultimately, BRICS will not gain relevance simply by expanding or opposing Western dominance. Its longevity will depend on whether it can build institutions and deliver tangible benefits. Institutions do not last because of what they oppose; they last because of what they build.