The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by combined US-Israeli forces marks not merely another chapter in the grim chronicle of Western interventionism, but potentially the opening act of a global catastrophe.
As the world teeters on the precipice of what many now openly call World War Three, we must confront an uncomfortable truth — the institutions we believed would safeguard us from such chaos have proven themselves either unwilling or structurally incapable of doing so.
The question now facing the Global South is not whether the current international order has failed — it demonstrably has — but whether the alternatives we have constructed can offer genuine protection or are merely aspirational frameworks without teeth.
The targeted killing of Iran’s supreme leader represents an unprecedented escalation in the decades-long confrontation between Tehran and the west.
Unlike the surgical strikes against military commanders or nuclear scientists that have characterised previous operations, this is a direct decapitation of a sovereign state’s highest religious and political authority.
It is an act that, under any reasonable interpretation of international law, constitutes an act of war.
The legal architecture that was supposed to prevent such actions — the UN charter’s prohibition on the use of force, the principles of sovereign equality, the norms against political assassination — has been rendered meaningless.
The message is clear — if a nation possesses resources, strategic geography or simply refuses to align with Western interests, its leadership can be eliminated with impunity.
The pattern that began in Baghdad, continued through Tripoli and Caracas, has now reached Tehran. Each iteration becomes more brazen, each justification more threadbare.
The concern about a third world war is not alarmist hyperbole; it is a rational assessment of the current geopolitical trajectory.
The concern about a third world war is not alarmist hyperbole; it is a rational assessment of the current geopolitical trajectory.
Iran is not Libya or Venezuela. It is a regional power with significant military capabilities, deep alliances across the Middle East and strategic partnerships with Russia and China.
Its potential response, whether through direct military action, proxy warfare or the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes), could trigger a chain reaction of unprecedented scale.
Russia and China, both of whom have invested heavily in Iran economically and strategically, now face a critical test.
Will they respond with substantive support, risking direct confrontation with the US? Or will they issue condemnations and continue business as usual, revealing the limits of their commitment to a “multipolar world order”?
The answer to this question will determine not just Iran’s fate, but the credibility of the entire alternative global architecture that Brics purports to represent.
The criticism that “Brics is useless” has gained traction, particularly among nations in the global south who hoped it would serve as a counterweight to western hegemony.
To assess this claim fairly, we must examine what Brics was designed to be versus what it has become.
The original vision is that Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, SA, and now expanded to include Iran, the UAE, Egypt and Ethiopia) was conceived primarily as an economic alliance. Its stated objectives focus on:
- Reforming global financial institutions to give developing nations greater voice;
- Promoting trade in local currencies to reduce dollar dependency;
- Financing infrastructure development through institutions like the New Development Bank; and
- Advocating for a more representative international order.
Notably absent from this mandate is any explicit commitment to collective security or political-military intervention.
For Africans, the Iranian crisis offers several critical lessons.
Brics is not Nato. It was never intended to be a mutual defence pact.
Herein lies the fundamental problem. Economic co-operation, while valuable, offers no protection when bombs are falling.
A nation can trade in yuan and rupees, secure development loans from the New Development Bank, and still find its leader assassinated and its sovereignty violated with no meaningful response from its Brics partners.
Iran’s membership in Brics, formalised in 2024, has proven strategically worthless in its moment of existential crisis.
China and Russia, the bloc’s most powerful members, have issued the predictable statements of concern but have taken no concrete action.
India, with its complex relationship with both Iran and the US, has remained conspicuously silent.
This paralysis reveals Brics not as a unified bloc but as a loose association of nations with divergent interests and no appetite for confrontation with the West.
The question of whether Brics should expand its mandate to include political and security co-operation is both urgent and complex.
Iran’s membership in Brics, formalised in 2024, has proven strategically worthless in its moment of existential crisis.
The case for:
- Credibility: Without the capacity to defend its members, Brics will remain a paper tiger, unable to deter Western aggression.
- Deterrence: A collective security framework could make interventions like those in Libya, Venezuela and now Iran prohibitively costly.
- Sovereignty protection: Economic independence means little if a nation’s government can be overthrown at will.
- Historical precedent: The Non-Aligned Movement failed partly because it lacked enforcement mechanisms; Brics should learn this lesson.
The case against:
- Internal divisions: India and China have border disputes; Russia and China have historical tensions; members have vastly different relationships with the West;
- Risk of escalation: A Brics mutual defence pact would dramatically increase the risk of global conflict.
- Practical limitations: Even combined, Brics members lack the power projection capabilities to effectively counter US-Nato military dominance.
- Mission creep: Transforming Brics into a military alliance could undermine its economic objectives and alienate potential new members
The current model has failed. Brics, in its present form, offers developing nations the illusion of protection without the substance.
However, a full transformation into a Nato-style alliance is neither practical nor desirable.
What is needed is a middle path — a graduated framework of political solidarity and strategic co-ordination that stops short of automatic military intervention but goes far beyond empty rhetoric.
This includes co-ordinated diplomatic responses to violations of member sovereignty, economic sanctions and trade restrictions against aggressor nations, intelligence sharing and early warning systems to prevent surprise attacks, joint development of defensive capabilities without offensive military integration, and a formal commitment to non-recognition of governments installed by foreign intervention.
For Africans, the Iranian crisis offers several critical lessons.
Firstly, economic alliances are necessary but insufficient. Diversifying trade partners and reducing dollar dependency are important steps, but they will not prevent regime change operations.
We need comprehensive strategies that include political, diplomatic, and yes, security dimensions.
Secondly, unity must translate into action.
The AU’s response to Venezuela was muted; its response to Iran has been virtually non-existent.
If continental bodies cannot or will not defend the principle of sovereignty when it is violated, they serve little purpose beyond providing platforms for speeches.
Thirdly, the myth of “international community”.
The term “international community,” as used by Western media and politicians, is a fiction. It refers only to the US and its allies.
The actual international community — the majority of the world’s nations and people — must build its own institutions with real power.
Lastly, resource sovereignty is existential. Every nation targeted for intervention — Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Iran — possessed significant natural resources.
African nations must urgently develop the capacity to extract, refine and market their own resources, or they will remain perpetual targets.
The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader should serve as a wake-up call, not just for Brics, but for all nations that value sovereignty and self-determination.
The current international order, built on the ashes of World War Two, has collapsed.
The United Nations Security Council, paralysed by veto powers, cannot fulfil its mandate to maintain international peace and security.
We stand at a crossroads.
One path leads to a return to naked imperialism, where might makes right and international law is a weapon wielded by the strong against the weak.
The other path requires the construction of new institutions, or the radical reformation of existing ones, that can actually protect sovereignty and punish aggression, regardless of the aggressor’s military or economic power.
Brics, in its current form, is not the answer.
But it could be transformed into part of the solution if its members demonstrate the political will to move beyond economic co-operation and into genuine collective action.
The alternative is to watch, one by one, as nations that refuse to submit are systematically dismantled, their leaders killed or captured, their resources plundered, until there is no-one left to resist.
The question Trump asked after Venezuela — “Who is next?” — has been answered. It was Iran.
The question we must now ask ourselves is: who will be next after Iran?
And when that moment comes, will we finally have built the institutions and alliances capable of saying “no more”, or will we simply issue another round of strongly worded statements as the bombs fall?
Innocent Chigume, PhD law student at the University of Fort Hare
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.