Opinion: Trump’s Geopolitical Stagecraft—Thwarting BRICS, Avoiding WWIII, or Chasing Biblical Prophecy?
Posted on 2025-06-12
Categories: Education, Technology, Social, War, Power, Handlers
In the volatile arena of 2025’s geopolitics, former President Donald Trump’s return to power has coincided with a curious alignment of global tensions that raises a provocative question: has Trump orchestrated a geopolitical masterstroke to neutralize the BRICS coalition’s ability to bolster Iran’s defense against U.S.-backed Israel, thereby averting a potential World War III? Or is this confluence of crises—Russia mired in Ukraine, China grappling with economic instability, and India distracted by Pakistan—an opportunistic stage for indulging in self-fulfilling Biblical prophecy? This opinion piece explores whether Trump’s foreign policy is a calculated design to weaken BRICS’ cohesion or a reckless flirtation with apocalyptic narratives that resonate with his evangelical base.
The BRICS Distraction: A Strategic Setup?
The BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, with Iran as a recent addition—represent a counterweight to Western dominance, advocating for a multipolar world. Iran, a linchpin in this bloc due to its strategic position and oil reserves, has long been a target of U.S. and Israeli pressure, particularly over its nuclear ambitions and support for proxy groups like Hezbollah. In 2025, the U.S.’s unwavering military support for Israel, including advanced weaponry and intelligence sharing, has heightened tensions with Iran, raising fears of a broader conflict. Yet, the BRICS nations, which could collectively challenge this dynamic, appear conspicuously preoccupied.
Russia, a key Iranian ally, is bogged down in its protracted war in Ukraine. The conflict, now in its fourth year, has drained Moscow’s resources and attention, limiting its capacity to provide Iran with advanced military systems like the S-400 or to project power in the Middle East. Reports indicate Russia relies heavily on Iranian drones and missiles for its own war effort, creating a dependency that weakens its ability to reciprocate robust support. This entanglement benefits the U.S., as a distracted Russia cannot effectively bolster Iran’s defense against Israel’s U.S.-backed operations.
China, another pillar of BRICS, is Iran’s largest oil buyer and a potential counterbalance to U.S. influence. However, Beijing faces mounting economic challenges in 2025, including a property sector crisis, declining exports, and domestic unrest over unemployment. These pressures have forced China to prioritize internal stability over foreign adventurism. While China conducts joint naval exercises with Iran and Russia, its support for Tehran remains largely economic and diplomatic, shying away from direct military involvement that could escalate tensions with the U.S. or disrupt global trade routes critical to its economy.
India, a BRICS member with growing global clout, is distracted by escalating tensions with Pakistan. Border skirmishes in Kashmir and diplomatic spats over terrorism have intensified, pulling New Delhi’s focus inward. India’s delicate balancing act—maintaining ties with both the U.S. and Russia while avoiding entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts—further limits its willingness to support Iran’s defense. Brazil and South Africa, meanwhile, lack the military or economic heft to significantly influence the Iran-Israel dynamic.
Could this fragmentation of BRICS be by design? Trump’s foreign policy, characterized by “America First” unilateralism, has historically leveraged chaos to weaken adversaries. His administration’s early moves in 2025—imposing new sanctions on Iran, reaffirming ironclad support for Israel, and pressuring NATO allies to increase defense spending—suggest a deliberate strategy to exploit BRICS’ vulnerabilities. By keeping Russia pinned in Ukraine through sustained U.S. aid to Kyiv, pressuring China with trade tariffs and technology restrictions, and tacitly encouraging India’s focus on Pakistan, Trump may have created a geopolitical environment where BRICS cannot coalesce to defend Iran. This divide-and-conquer approach ensures that Iran faces Israel’s military might—and U.S. backing—without significant external support, reducing the risk of a broader conflict that could spiral into WWIII.
The Biblical Prophecy Angle: Opportunism or Obsession?
An alternative lens suggests that Trump’s actions are less about strategic genius and more about exploiting a narrative that resonates deeply with his evangelical Christian base: the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Many evangelicals view the Middle East, particularly Israel, as central to end-times scenarios described in the Book of Revelation, where a final battle between good and evil unfolds. Iran, often cast as a modern-day Persia in these narratives, is seen as an antagonist destined to clash with Israel, paving the way for divine intervention.
Trump’s vocal support for Israel, including his 2018 decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and his recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, has cemented his image as a defender of the Jewish state. In 2025, his administration’s escalation of military aid to Israel, coupled with provocative rhetoric against Iran, aligns with the apocalyptic imagery cherished by his supporters. Social media platforms like X are rife with posts from evangelical influencers framing U.S.-Israel actions as steps toward fulfilling prophecy, with Trump cast as a divinely ordained figure.
This raises a troubling question: is Trump cynically indulging this narrative to galvanize his base, or does he genuinely believe in its inevitability? His past associations with figures like Pastor John Hagee, who advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance to hasten the Second Coming, suggest a willingness to embrace such ideas for political gain. By amplifying tensions with Iran while ensuring BRICS remains distracted, Trump may see an opportunity to stage a controlled crisis—one that burnishes his image as a prophetic leader without triggering a global war. However, this approach risks miscalculation, as even a limited conflict could escalate unpredictably.
Design or Coincidence?
The truth likely lies in a blend of strategy and opportunism. Trump’s team, including seasoned advisors from his first term, understands the value of keeping adversaries divided. The U.S.’s ability to sustain Ukraine’s resistance, pressure China economically, and subtly encourage India’s regional focus reflects a calculated effort to weaken BRICS’ cohesion. This creates a window for Israel to confront Iran with minimal interference, aligning with Trump’s pro-Israel stance and his desire to project strength.
Yet, the Biblical prophecy angle cannot be dismissed. Trump’s rhetoric and policies often cater to his evangelical base, and the Middle East’s symbolic weight makes it a fertile ground for such narratives. Whether he believes in these prophecies or merely exploits them, the outcome is the same: a geopolitical stage where Iran is isolated, BRICS is distracted, and the specter of WWIII is held at bay—for now.
Trump’s foreign policy in 2025 appears to exploit BRICS’ preoccupation—Russia in Ukraine, China in economic turmoil, India in regional strife—to limit Iran’s defensive capabilities against U.S.-backed Israel. This may be a deliberate strategy to prevent a unified BRICS response, reducing the risk of a global conflict. Simultaneously, it aligns with a narrative of Biblical prophecy that energizes his base, raising questions about whether Trump is a geopolitical chessmaster or a leader chasing apocalyptic visions. The answer hinges on whether these crises are orchestrated or merely convenient. Either way, the world watches uneasily as the Middle East teeters on the brink, with Trump holding the reins of a delicately balanced global order.
The BRICS Distraction: A Strategic Setup?
The BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, with Iran as a recent addition—represent a counterweight to Western dominance, advocating for a multipolar world. Iran, a linchpin in this bloc due to its strategic position and oil reserves, has long been a target of U.S. and Israeli pressure, particularly over its nuclear ambitions and support for proxy groups like Hezbollah. In 2025, the U.S.’s unwavering military support for Israel, including advanced weaponry and intelligence sharing, has heightened tensions with Iran, raising fears of a broader conflict. Yet, the BRICS nations, which could collectively challenge this dynamic, appear conspicuously preoccupied.
Russia, a key Iranian ally, is bogged down in its protracted war in Ukraine. The conflict, now in its fourth year, has drained Moscow’s resources and attention, limiting its capacity to provide Iran with advanced military systems like the S-400 or to project power in the Middle East. Reports indicate Russia relies heavily on Iranian drones and missiles for its own war effort, creating a dependency that weakens its ability to reciprocate robust support. This entanglement benefits the U.S., as a distracted Russia cannot effectively bolster Iran’s defense against Israel’s U.S.-backed operations.
China, another pillar of BRICS, is Iran’s largest oil buyer and a potential counterbalance to U.S. influence. However, Beijing faces mounting economic challenges in 2025, including a property sector crisis, declining exports, and domestic unrest over unemployment. These pressures have forced China to prioritize internal stability over foreign adventurism. While China conducts joint naval exercises with Iran and Russia, its support for Tehran remains largely economic and diplomatic, shying away from direct military involvement that could escalate tensions with the U.S. or disrupt global trade routes critical to its economy.
India, a BRICS member with growing global clout, is distracted by escalating tensions with Pakistan. Border skirmishes in Kashmir and diplomatic spats over terrorism have intensified, pulling New Delhi’s focus inward. India’s delicate balancing act—maintaining ties with both the U.S. and Russia while avoiding entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts—further limits its willingness to support Iran’s defense. Brazil and South Africa, meanwhile, lack the military or economic heft to significantly influence the Iran-Israel dynamic.
Could this fragmentation of BRICS be by design? Trump’s foreign policy, characterized by “America First” unilateralism, has historically leveraged chaos to weaken adversaries. His administration’s early moves in 2025—imposing new sanctions on Iran, reaffirming ironclad support for Israel, and pressuring NATO allies to increase defense spending—suggest a deliberate strategy to exploit BRICS’ vulnerabilities. By keeping Russia pinned in Ukraine through sustained U.S. aid to Kyiv, pressuring China with trade tariffs and technology restrictions, and tacitly encouraging India’s focus on Pakistan, Trump may have created a geopolitical environment where BRICS cannot coalesce to defend Iran. This divide-and-conquer approach ensures that Iran faces Israel’s military might—and U.S. backing—without significant external support, reducing the risk of a broader conflict that could spiral into WWIII.
The Biblical Prophecy Angle: Opportunism or Obsession?
An alternative lens suggests that Trump’s actions are less about strategic genius and more about exploiting a narrative that resonates deeply with his evangelical Christian base: the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Many evangelicals view the Middle East, particularly Israel, as central to end-times scenarios described in the Book of Revelation, where a final battle between good and evil unfolds. Iran, often cast as a modern-day Persia in these narratives, is seen as an antagonist destined to clash with Israel, paving the way for divine intervention.
Trump’s vocal support for Israel, including his 2018 decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and his recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, has cemented his image as a defender of the Jewish state. In 2025, his administration’s escalation of military aid to Israel, coupled with provocative rhetoric against Iran, aligns with the apocalyptic imagery cherished by his supporters. Social media platforms like X are rife with posts from evangelical influencers framing U.S.-Israel actions as steps toward fulfilling prophecy, with Trump cast as a divinely ordained figure.
This raises a troubling question: is Trump cynically indulging this narrative to galvanize his base, or does he genuinely believe in its inevitability? His past associations with figures like Pastor John Hagee, who advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance to hasten the Second Coming, suggest a willingness to embrace such ideas for political gain. By amplifying tensions with Iran while ensuring BRICS remains distracted, Trump may see an opportunity to stage a controlled crisis—one that burnishes his image as a prophetic leader without triggering a global war. However, this approach risks miscalculation, as even a limited conflict could escalate unpredictably.
Design or Coincidence?
The truth likely lies in a blend of strategy and opportunism. Trump’s team, including seasoned advisors from his first term, understands the value of keeping adversaries divided. The U.S.’s ability to sustain Ukraine’s resistance, pressure China economically, and subtly encourage India’s regional focus reflects a calculated effort to weaken BRICS’ cohesion. This creates a window for Israel to confront Iran with minimal interference, aligning with Trump’s pro-Israel stance and his desire to project strength.
Yet, the Biblical prophecy angle cannot be dismissed. Trump’s rhetoric and policies often cater to his evangelical base, and the Middle East’s symbolic weight makes it a fertile ground for such narratives. Whether he believes in these prophecies or merely exploits them, the outcome is the same: a geopolitical stage where Iran is isolated, BRICS is distracted, and the specter of WWIII is held at bay—for now.
Trump’s foreign policy in 2025 appears to exploit BRICS’ preoccupation—Russia in Ukraine, China in economic turmoil, India in regional strife—to limit Iran’s defensive capabilities against U.S.-backed Israel. This may be a deliberate strategy to prevent a unified BRICS response, reducing the risk of a global conflict. Simultaneously, it aligns with a narrative of Biblical prophecy that energizes his base, raising questions about whether Trump is a geopolitical chessmaster or a leader chasing apocalyptic visions. The answer hinges on whether these crises are orchestrated or merely convenient. Either way, the world watches uneasily as the Middle East teeters on the brink, with Trump holding the reins of a delicately balanced global order.