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.

Strait of Hormuz: Release the Seafarers Held Hostage

For months, entry and exit of merchant ships into/ from the Strait of Hormuz has remained at the lowest level due to the US blockade, though President Trump holds Iran responsible for this blockade.

The biggest losers are shipping companies because these ships are stuck and cannot be deployed on any other voyage. But even worse hit are the seafarers, who are stranded at sea for months, separated from their families and uncertain about when they will be able to return home.

The scale of this humanitarian crisis is staggering. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), around 6,000 seafarers remain stranded aboard vessels unable to leave the Persian Gulf safely. The UN human-rights office has reported that at least 6,000 seafarers aboard some 400 vessels remain stranded in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

These 6,000 people are not soldiers. They are not combatants. They are ordinary men and women doing their jobs to keep global trade moving. Yet they have become innocent victims of a geopolitical confrontation in which they have no stake.

These seafarers, stranded at sea, face disruption in food supplies, drinking water, medicines and other essential items. Prolonged confinement, uncertainty and separation from their families are placing an enormous psychological and physical burden on them.

A conclusion can be drawn that these ships and seafarers have been held “hostage” by the United States.

Iran, suffering from economic sanctions, has offered safe exit to these ships if they pay a toll. It is believed that shipping companies were willing to pay the toll for safe exit, but the US Navy denies exit even after payment of the toll.

Many analysts term US attacks on Iran illegal and the detention of ships and seafarers tantamount to “Maritime Terrorism.”

Whatever the legal or political arguments, one fact should concern the entire world - approximately 6,000 human beings are trapped at sea. They have families waiting for them. They have homes to return to. They have done nothing to become victims of this conflict.

The international community cannot remain silent while thousands of seafarers spend months trapped aboard ships.

May be the time has come for shipping companies to stop delivering cargo to, or taking cargo from, US ports unless the ships stranded at the Strait of Hormuz are allowed safe exit.

This is no longer merely a dispute between the United States and Iran. It is a humanitarian crisis.

All stakeholders - the US administration, Iran, shipping companies, maritime organizations, seafarers' unions and the international community—are requested to join hands for the immediate release and safe passage of these seafarers.

Political differences can wait. Economic disputes can wait. But human beings cannot wait indefinitely. The world must raise its voice for those who have no voice.

Release the ships. Release the seafarers.

OPEC Plus keeps oil output policy unchanged

OPEC Plus kept its oil output policy unchanged for ‌October at a meeting on Sunday, as the producer group needs to agree new quotas before deciding its next output steps.

The meeting of seven core OPEC+ members — Saudi Arabia, ​Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Oman — comes as the US-Israel war on Iran continues to ​disrupt oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, limiting OPEC+'s influence over prices ⁠and market share.

In August, OPEC+ agreed its production boost for September, completing a phased rollback ​of a 1.65 million barrel per day supply cut first agreed in 2023.

Despite the agreed production increases, ​the group made up of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, including Russia, still produces far below its targets because of the war.

"OPEC+ currently has ​very limited power over the physical oil market," said Jorge Leon of Rystad Energy. "The group ​can change production targets on paper, but it cannot guarantee that those barrels will be produced or ‌actually ⁠reach the market."

"The focus now shifts away from monthly production adjustments and towards the much more consequential debate over 2027."

OPEC+ still has another layer of production cuts in place, covering most members of the 21-country group until the end of 2026. Before the group decides ​how to unwind the ​cuts and return production ⁠to the market, it needs to review members' oil production capacity to set 2027 output baselines, which form the basis for quotas.

This ​debate will likely happen later in 2026 and hence OPEC+ is ​likely to pause ⁠its output increases for the fourth quarter, sources earlier told Reuters. The statement on Sunday made no mention of policy beyond October.

Only the seven OPEC+ members who met on Sunday, plus ⁠the United ​Arab Emirates until it left OPEC in May, have ​been involved in monthly output decisions in recent years.

From Seven Sisters to Magnificent Seven: Is America’s Supremacy Changing?

The emergence of United States as the world’s economic superpower was closely intertwined with oil. For much of the 20th century, the global petroleum industry was dominated by the “Seven Sisters”—five American companies and two European majors. Their influence extended far beyond their home countries. They controlled substantial portions of exploration, production, transportation, refining and marketing, particularly in the Middle East.

Oil was therefore much more than a commodity. Control over its production and supply gave the West enormous economic and geopolitical leverage—and helped underpin American supremacy, but the source of power is changing.

In 2026, the United States still possesses unparalleled military capabilities. Yet its confrontation with Iran has highlighted a new reality - military superiority does not automatically translate into absolute strategic dominance. Iran’s ability to employ relatively inexpensive missiles and drones demonstrates how cost asymmetry can challenge even the most sophisticated and expensive military systems.

Meanwhile, another group of seven American companies has emerged as symbols of a new economic era - Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Tesla—the “Magnificent Seven.”

Their power is fundamentally different from that of the Seven Sisters. These entities dominate artificial intelligence, semiconductors, software, cloud computing, data, digital platforms and other technologies that increasingly determine economic competitiveness, yet there is an important contradiction.

While Wall Street provides these corporations with enormous access to capital and valuation, their physical production and supply chains are global. Critical components, manufacturing capacity and rare-earth processing remain heavily dependent on other countries. A country can therefore lead the technological revolution while remaining dependent on foreign ecosystems for some of its physical foundations.

This raises a serious question, is America moving from an age of controlling the world’s most important commodity to an age of controlling its most important technologies—without necessarily controlling everything those technologies require?

The United States may remain the world’s most powerful nation. But perhaps the era of absolute American supremacy is giving way to an era of shared supremacy, in which China, Japan and other major powers increasingly possess the resources, manufacturing capabilities and technologies needed to shape the global order.

The Seven Sisters built an oil-powered America. The Magnificent Seven may be building a technology-powered America, but unlike oil, technology cannot be controlled in isolation.

Trump Sinking Deeper into the Marsh

Donald Trump may have entered the war against Iran believing that overwhelming American and Israeli military power would deliver a quick and decisive victory. Instead, he appears to be sinking deeper into a strategic marsh. The more he struggles to secure the outcome he expected, the more complicated the consequences seem to become.

The first problem is that Trump joined Israel in a war against Iran without a sufficiently broad coalition of trusted American allies. What may have been conceived as an assertion of American power has increasingly exposed the limitations of unilateral action. Iran has suffered enormous damage, but it has also demonstrated a resilience that appears to have exceeded Washington’s expectations.

The second—and perhaps more serious—problem is Trump’s mindset. He appears reluctant to consider that his original assumptions may have been wrong. If Iran cannot be forced into submission, continuing the war carries mounting costs; yet accepting this reality could require Trump to acknowledge a strategic miscalculation.

The regional consequences are equally troubling. Arab governments may increasingly perceive that, when American and Arab interests diverge, Israel remains Washington’s first choice for protection. The confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz adds another layer of resentment. Gulf economies depend heavily on uninterrupted crude exports, and restrictions on shipping threaten their interests even when they are not parties to the conflict.

Meanwhile, Iran is not isolated. Israel’s claim that China is providing technical expertise to Tehran points to an increasingly important dimension of the conflict - America may be pushing Iran closer to a powerful strategic partner.

The consequences are spreading beyond the Middle East. The withdrawal of American aircraft carriers from the South China Sea has weakened Washington’s immediate naval posture in an area where China is the principal challenger.

At the same time, depleted US arsenals, after years of support for Ukraine and the demands of the Iran conflict, could constrain Washington’s ability to respond elsewhere.

Then comes oil. Despite the disruption surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, crude prices have not reached the dramatic US$200-per-barrel level that would have transformed the economic equation in America’s favor.

Trump therefore faces an increasingly difficult choice: continue the war and risk sinking deeper, or seek an exit that could be portrayed as retreat.

The marsh may no longer be Iran. It may be Trump’s own conviction that admitting a mistake is more dangerous than continuing to struggle.

PSX average daily trading volume declines by 26%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained subdued during this past week, with the escalation of the US-Iran conflict, now in its seventh month, being the primary headwind, following US strikes on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliatory strikes on US air bases in the region. Market activity also weakened, with average daily trading volume declining by 26%WoW to 971 million shares.

Consequently, Brent crude surged to a six-week high of US$97.6/ bbl during the week, while the benchmark Index declined 2,368 points, down 1.3%WoW to close at 175,329.

However, negative sentiments were partially offset by Pakistan’s record US$3 billion dual-tranche Eurobond issuance, which achieved the lowest spreads over US Treasuries in two decades and marked the country’s largest-ever international capital market transaction.

Trade deficit widened 10%YoY to US$3.2 billion in August 2026, although it narrowed 20%MoM despite higher international oil prices.

CPI for August 2026 accelerated to 11.1%YoY (9.2%YoY in June 2026) on higher Transport and Food prices.

FBR surpassed its 2MFY27 revenue target by PKR12 billion, while the government raised PKR657 billion through T-Bill auctions, with yields ranging between 11.39% and 11.99% across tenors.

Cement dispatches edged down 0.7%YoY to 4.0 million tons amid monsoon rains, while petroleum offtakes declined 3%YoY to 1.3 million tons due to transporters strikes.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan to head joint defence secretariat under Makkah Defence Alliance, 2) GoP made record PKR1.2 trillion early repayment of central bank debt, 3) IMF cites Pakistan as model for debt, growth and reform drive, 4) Cotton arrivals rose 27%YoY to 1.7 million bales in August 2026, and 5) foreign exchange reserves held by SBP rose modestly to US$17.1 billion as of August 28, 2026.

Top performing sectors were Textile Composites and Refineries, while the laggards included Banks, Pharmaceuticals, and Technology.

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds (US$18.1 million) and Foreigners (US$7.4 million). Net buyers were Individuals with US$16.6 million.

Top performing scrips were: PGLC, THALL, EFERT, TPLRF1, and ILP, while laggards included: PSEL, SCBPL, SRVI, KOHC, and BAHL.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators and a strong fiscal position, while moderating inflation should increase the likelihood of interest rates returning to single digits by year-end.

Additionally, a potential US Iran deal could moderate international oil prices towards pre-conflict levels. Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

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

USS Abraham Lincoln: A Metaphor for a Depleted America

The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln in Thailand should prompt more than curiosity about the rusty appearance of an American supercarrier. It offers a striking metaphor for the condition of the United States itself.

The almost 1,100-foot-long carrier arrived at Laem Chabang after an extraordinary 286 days without a full rest-and-relaxation port call. Much of that period was reportedly spent conducting grueling combat operations against Iran. Its heavily rusted hull tells the story of prolonged deployment, while reports of supply shortages and morale problems raise questions about the condition of its crew.

To be fair, rust on a warship after prolonged deployment is not unusual. Naval experts say removing it requires substantial maintenance that cannot easily be undertaken during combat operations. The issue, therefore, is not simply the rust. It is the prolonged deployment that produced it.

That distinction carries a much larger message.

The United States appears to be confronting a similar problem - too many commitments, enormous financial burdens and insufficient time to replenish the resources consumed by sustained military operations.

Federal debt has climbed to around US$40 trillion, while prolonged conflicts and military commitments have placed extraordinary demands on defense resources. Concerns about ammunition stocks and replenishment have further exposed the limits of maintaining high-intensity operations indefinitely.

But the deeper problem is strategic rather than physical or financial. The real test of a superpower is not how much it can spend or how many weapons it possesses, but whether it can translate overwhelming capabilities into clearly defined and achievable political objectives.

This is where the contrast with Donald Trump's promise of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) becomes uncomfortable.

Greatness cannot be measured merely by bigger ships, larger defense budgets or louder rhetoric. It requires a resilient economy, sustainable military power, sound strategy and the ability to achieve stated objectives without exhausting the resources needed for tomorrow.

The USS Abraham Lincoln may simply need maintenance after an unusually long deployment. But as a metaphor, it raises a more consequential question, is America replenishing its power—or exhausting it?

MAGA promised to make America great again. The rust on the Lincoln suggests that, before greatness can be restored, America may first need to repair, replenish and rethink the way it exercises its power.