BRICS

Iran is set to join the New Development Bank (NDB), the development lender established by the BRICS group, Iranian central bank governor Abdolnaser Hemmati said on Wednesday, as Tehran seeks to deepen financial ties with emerging economies amid sweeping international sanctions.

Hemmati made the remarks ahead of a BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors meeting hosted by India, which holds the group’s rotating chairmanship this year.

Iran joined BRICS in 2024 as part of the bloc’s expansion and has since expressed interest in becoming a member and shareholder of the NDB. The bank was established in 2015 by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects.

“The most important result of cooperation among BRICS member countries is the establishment of the New Development Bank, and our country will soon become a member of this bank,” Hemmati said, according to Iranian state media.

Iran Seeks Alternative Financial Channels

Membership of the NDB would give Iran another avenue for economic cooperation outside traditional Western dominated financial institutions, although the extent of any benefit would depend on the bank’s ability to operate with a heavily sanctioned Iranian economy.

Iran remains under extensive U.S. and international sanctions and has yet to reach a peace agreement to end its current conflict with the United States and Israel. These pressures have increased Tehran’s incentive to strengthen economic relationships with non-Western powers and reduce its exposure to dollar based financial systems.

The NDB has expanded beyond its original five members to include countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, increasing its role as a financial institution connecting emerging economies.

BRICS Pushes for Local Currency Trade

Hemmati also said Iran supported greater use of national currencies in trade among BRICS members.

BRICS countries have increasingly promoted mechanisms intended to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar, including greater use of national currencies for bilateral trade and financial transactions.

Iran is also seeking bilateral and trilateral monetary cooperation with other BRICS members, Hemmati said.

A Strategic Financial Move for Tehran

Iran’s expected entry into the NDB is significant not simply as a development financing decision but as part of Tehran’s broader effort to build an alternative economic network amid Western sanctions.

For Iran, deeper integration with BRICS could provide additional channels for investment, infrastructure cooperation and financial transactions while strengthening economic ties with major emerging powers such as China, India and Russia. However, membership alone will not remove the restrictions created by U.S. sanctions or guarantee access to international capital.

The move also reflects the broader evolution of BRICS from an economic grouping into a platform through which its members can challenge aspects of the Western dominated financial order. Iran’s participation strengthens that trend, particularly as the group promotes greater use of local currencies and seeks to diversify international financial relationships.

For Tehran, therefore, joining the NDB would represent both an economic opportunity and a geopolitical signal: Iran is seeking to reduce its vulnerability to Western financial pressure by embedding itself more deeply within emerging non-Western economic institutions.

With information from Reuters.

The international order is falling apart, happening visibly, rapidly, and in ways that no longer surprise even the most committed defenders of the post-1945 liberal framework. The United Nations Security Council has not been able to do anything about the problems in Gaza and Ukraine. The group of countries known as BRICS is getting bigger. Now has nine members. Some countries in the Gulf are thinking about using a currency to price oil instead of using the US dollar. All of these things are putting a lot of pressure on the system that the United States has been in charge of.

Many people in the Global South think this is a thing. They do not think the United States has been fair in the way it has enforced the rules. They think the United States has only looked out for its interests and the interests of its friends. This is not a thing to say. The United States has been inconsistent in the way it has applied the rules about weapons, sanctions, and international crime.

The problem is that just because the old system is falling apart, it does not mean that something better will take its place. The question is not whether the United States is losing its power because it is clear that this is happening. The question is what will happen next. Will the new system be fair, more stable, and better at dealing with global problems?

The Architecture of Decline

The truth is that the United States has been losing its power for a time, but this has happened much faster since 2022. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it showed that big countries can still go to war with each other. It also showed that the United States and its friends cannot stop this from happening. The war in Ukraine has led to the use of financial sanctions in history, with over $300 billion in Russian assets being frozen.

This has made other countries want to reduce their dependence on the US dollar. They are afraid that if they rely much on the United States, they will be vulnerable to its power. According to International Monetary Fund estimates, the group of countries known as BRICS has expanded to include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Ethiopia, and Egypt. This group now accounts for over 40 percent of the economy. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has also gotten bigger. Now includes Pakistan, India, and Iran in addition to Russia and China. This organization is now the regional security group in the world. These changes are not just symbolic; they show a shift in where power is concentrated in the world.

New Poles, Old Problems

The problem with a world is that it does not necessarily mean that things will be more fair or more stable. In the century Europe had a multipolar system, but it still had many wars. The same thing happened in the 20th century. Just because there are powerful countries does not mean that they will behave in a certain way.

The problem with a world is that it does not necessarily mean that things will be more fair or more stable. In the century Europe had a multipolar system, but it still had many wars. The same thing happened in the 20th century. Just because there are powerful countries does not mean that they will behave in a certain way.

The Institutional Vacuum

The biggest risk of the situation is that the international institutions that we have will become useless. The United Nations Security Council has not been able to do anything about the security crises of the past few years. The World Trade Organization is also not working properly.

When powerful countries use these institutions for their purposes, it undermines their legitimacy. This is a problem because it means that smaller countries will suffer the most. The rules of law are only useful if they are applied equally to everyone.

The Global South’s Strategic Dilemma

For countries in the Global South, the transition to a world is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gives them space to maneuver and more access to financing for infrastructure projects. On the other hand, it also means that they will have to navigate a more complex and uncertain world.

The best way forward is to try to shape the transition to a world in a way that preserves the international institutions that we have. This means reforming the United Nations Security Council to make it more representative of the world. It also means strengthening the courts and the World Trade Organization.

Towards a Legitimate Multipolarity

This will not be easy. It is necessary. If we do not do this, we risk creating a world where might makes right. There is no shared set of rules to govern the behavior of states. This would be a disaster for everyone, for the smallest and weakest countries.

The multipolar world may signal the end of the order, but it does not have to mean the end of order itself. We have to work to create a system that is fairer, more stable, and more just.