Thread by @angeloinchina

🧵Thread 1/7
How a Pakistan-India conflicts would only benefit the West and its military industrial complex ?
(a parallel with Iran-Irak war)

>>>>How the West Fuels Rivalries to Undermine BRICS and Control the Global South

The United States and its Western allies have long used a playbook of arming rival nations to exploit regional tensions, weaken collective challenges to their dominance, and secure economic gains. Two conflicts—the 1980s Iran-Iraq War and the ongoing India-Pakistan rivalry—reveal a recurring strategy: supply weapons to both sides, prolong hostilities, and sabotage unity among Global South nations. Today, this tactic is being redeployed to stifle the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and maintain Western hegemony in a shifting world order.

🧵Thread 2/7
The Iran-Iraq War: A Blueprint for Divide-and-Rule

In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran over territorial disputes and ideological rivalry, sparking an eight-year war that killed over a million people. Behind the bloodshed, Western powers saw an opportunity. The U.S., France, and others armed both sides:

Iraq: The U.S. provided Saddam Hussein’s regime with intelligence, dual-use technology (later used for chemical weapons), and billions in loans. France sold Mirage jets and Exocet missiles.
Iran: Despite an official arms embargo, the Reagan administration secretly sold missiles to Iran (the Iran-Contra scandal) to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.
Why? The West feared Iran’s revolutionary government would spread anti-Western ideology across the Middle East. By keeping both nations locked in war, they ensured neither could dominate the region or align with the Soviet Union. The conflict also created a lucrative market for Western arms dealers. As former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted, “The Iran-Iraq War helped revive America’s defense industry after Vietnam.”

The war ended in 1988 with no clear winner, leaving both nations economically shattered and politically isolated. The West, however, emerged richer and more influential.

🧵Thread 3/7
India-Pakistan: A Modern Replay

Fast-forward to today, and the same script is playing out in South Asia. India and Pakistan—nuclear-armed rivals since 1947—have fought four wars over Kashmir. While they avoid direct conflict now, their rivalry simmers through proxy attacks, espionage, and an arms race. Once again, Western nations are fueling the fire:

India: The U.S. has sold $20 billion in weapons since 2008, including Apache helicopters, P-8I patrol planes, and missile systems. France provides Rafale jets and Scorpène submarines. Russia remains India’s top supplier, with S-400 missiles and Sukhoi jets.
Pakistan: The U.S. gave Pakistan F-16s and drones for counterterrorism cooperation post-9/11. France previously sold Agosta submarines, while Turkey now supplies drones and warships.
Why? On the surface, the West claims to “balance” regional stability. In reality, arming both sides ensures neither India nor Pakistan can focus on building alternatives to Western-led systems.

🧵Thread 4/7
Undermining BRICS and the Global South

BRICS represents the most organized challenge to Western economic dominance in decades. Its members account for 40% of the global population and 25% of GDP, with ambitions to create a new development bank, trade in local currencies, and reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar. India, a BRICS founding member, is critical to this vision.

But India’s rivalry with Pakistan—a non-BRICS state—creates a fatal distraction:

Economic Drain: India spent 72 billion dollars on defense in 2023, while Pakistan spent 10 billion. These funds could instead finance BRICS infrastructure or green energy projects.
Political Fractures: India’s focus on countering Pakistan aligns it with U.S. Indo-Pacific strategies aimed at containing China—another BRICS leader. This splits the bloc’s unity.
Dependency on Western Arms: India’s reliance on U.S., French, and Russian weapons makes it harder to pursue truly independent policies. As security analyst Brahma Chellaney notes, “No nation can be sovereign while importing 85% of its military hardware.”
For the West, a divided BRICS is ideal. If India is bogged down in South Asian tensions, BRICS loses momentum, and the Global South remains fragmented.

🧵Thread 5/7
The “Divide-and-Profit” Strategy

The West’s approach is both cynical and profitable:

Arms Sales: The U.S. defense industry made $238 billion in 2022, with India and Pakistan among its top buyers. France’s Dassault (maker of Rafale jets) saw profits soar 25% after the India deal.
Political Leverage: By arming both sides, Western nations position themselves as indispensable mediators. For example, the U.S. often intercedes in India-Pakistan crises (e.g., 2019 Kashmir standoff) to assert its diplomatic clout.
Containing China: U.S. arms sales to India aim to counterbalance China’s rise, but they also deepen India’s rivalry with China-ally Pakistan, creating a three-way tug-of-war that the West exploits.
This strategy mirrors Cold War tactics, where the U.S. and USSR armed opposing sides in regional conflicts (e.g., Angola, Afghanistan) to expand influence. Today, the targets are BRICS and the Global South.

🧵Thread 6/7
Outcome: A Stalled Global South

The consequences are stark:

Prolonged Instability: Like the Iran-Iraq War, India-Pakistan tensions fester with no resolution, draining both nations’ resources.
Weakened Solidarity: BRICS struggles to coordinate amid India-Pakistan hostility and India-China border disputes.
Western Dominance Endures: The U.S. dollar remains unchallenged, NATO expands, and Global South nations stay dependent on Western arms and capital.

🧵Thread 7/7
Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle

The Iran-Iraq War and India-Pakistan rivalry reveal a harsh truth: conflict is lucrative for those who sell the weapons. Until Global South nations reduce reliance on Western arms and prioritize collective goals over bilateral grudges, BRICS will remain a half-built project.
The path forward requires investing in diplomacy, not fighter jets—and recognizing that unity, not division, is the only way to dismantle neocolonial power structures.