An Extension of “From Economic Bloc to Global Geostrategic Power”
Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about BRICS as an emerging
geostrategic force; an idea taking shape in the cracks of a weakening liberal
order. At the time, it was a forward-looking argument, built on signals:
expansion, de-dollarization efforts, and a growing dissatisfaction with Western
dominance.
Today, that argument has met reality.
There are moments in history when power sheds its diplomatic language and reveals its underlying structure. The unfolding confrontation between Iran, the United States, and Israel represents such a moment. What began as a regional escalation has evolved into a system-level stress test—one that is exposing the limits of military superiority, the fragility of alliance cohesion, and the growing primacy of leverage over dominance in shaping global outcomes. At the center of this transformation lies a critical shift: Iran is no longer merely resisting pressure; it is systematically converting that pressure into strategic power.
In the world today, the contours of diplomacy are shaped not only by treaties and dialogue, but also by how states wield power. The foreign policy approach associated with Donald Trump — emphasizing coercion, leverage, and transactional dominance — has profoundly influenced global politics. Nowhere
From Economic Bloc to Global Geostrategic Power
In the shadow of an exhausted liberal order and amid the smoke of a new trade war, a quiet revolution is unfolding—not in the halls of Washington or Brussels, but in the south-south corridors stretching from São Paulo to Shanghai, Pretoria to St. Petersburg. It’s called BRICS, and it’s no longer just an acronym. It’s a signal.
The Question You’ve Been Asking Wrong
A scientist, an artist, and a man dying of thirst look at the same
glass of water. The scientist sees molecular structure, surface tension, the
physics of volume. The artist sees light bending through liquid, an interplay
of transparency and form. The thirsty man sees salvation—or a cruel reminder of
what he lacks.
Same glass. Same water. Three different truths.
 |
Imagine a man lost in the desert, dehydrated, desperate. On the horizon, he spots a shimmering oasis. The palm trees wave gently in the hot wind, and the promise of cool water beckons him forward. He stumbles toward it, hope propelling his exhausted body. When he finally reaches the spot, he discovers—there is no oasis. It was a mirage all along. Yet, that mirage saved his life by giving him the will to move.
A lot has been said about attitude in this generation, so I won’t bore you with redundant information. Attitude often takes center stage in the grand theatre of life. It’s the driving force that propels us toward our goals and shapes our perspective on challenges. It is also a determining factor of both success and failure. In the world of attitudes, two key players stand out: the “how to do” attitude and the “can do” attitude. While they may seem similar at first glance, they offer distinct approaches to achieving success, whether in the workplace, in personal endeavors, or when facing life’s uncertainties. Let’s explore the differences between these two attitudes and the impact they can have on our lives.