The "heating" in the arena of the great clash between the US and its allies and the leading BRICS countries on the other side, seems to be ending to pave the way for an open clash, at least diplomatic. After 3 years of local conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East, the second conflict seems to be bringing to the surface the real reasons behind Russian aggressiveness on the eastern borders of Europe and the unrest that Iran has caused at least since October 7, 2023 through its Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi proxies.

As stated before, it is now clear that behind the turmoil in international waters lies precisely China's increased ambition to transform itself from a regional power into a global power equivalent to the US. Somewhere through economic and military support for North Korea, somewhere else through joint declarations with Russia for a new multipolar world order, a little later with special relations with Venezuela and Iran, and in a more structured way with the creation of BRICS. BRICS as a platform not clearly as a genuine international organization similar to the G-7 or NATO, but a little of everything.

And especially in the economic and financial realm, through its ambition to replace the US Dollar with the Chinese YEN as the main currency for trade or banking exchanges globally, China has openly demonstrated its historical ambition. Historical because it has never in its history tried to behave as a dominant empire on a global scale, such as the Mongol, Persian, Ottoman, English or even Roman empires, to name a few.

But in this chaos that has so far produced more messages than clear declarative positions, just yesterday the statement of the People's Republic of China on the protection of its commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz from the announced American blockade seems to have completely changed its communication. Communication as an antagonist and not as a rival, spectator or instigator, which has been implied so far. Which means that on a rhetorical level, Chinese patience has come to an end. But for the sake of truth, psychologically this behavior contains a not insignificant trick. Because if China itself has thus engaged a series of initiatives and countries in a challenge to the unilateral world order led by the US, it is already playing the victim card according to which it is legitimately defending itself. This is typical Eastern behavior of the "throw a stone and hide your hand" style, while the US as a democratic power continues to exercise open diplomacy in means and purposes. Long live honesty! At least this should be accepted by the US's rivals.

But the point is that the US decision to blockade Hormuz is a decision that comes after Iran's refusal to treat this strategic passage as a multilateral issue, and not as a dictate of a country that, apart from blackmail, has no other means. After these 4 weeks of war showed their strength, where Iranian rubber boats are unable to face American frigates. Or drones and ballistic missiles are intercepted at a rate of 85-90%, while American-Israeli ones fly freely over Iran like a sky without God! Trump's "flame for flame" response to block Hormuz irritated China, which after losing access to Venezuelan oil, is now also endangering Iranian oil, which would create a major problem for its manufacturing economy as well as for consumers. Without energy, there is no money! Everyone knows this, especially the US, which enjoys the luxury of energy independence for at least the next 50 years.

So China, found in a "checkmate" position in a chess game that it started itself but with the hands of others, has now openly come out in a nervous statement. But if it remains only a statement, it is one issue. But if it sends its warships to oppose the American blockade, the game turns into another form of diplomacy. A war with weapons and not with words. The question that arises is: is China ready to do this? Doubts are great. Because in fact, although they themselves provoked this clash of titans, as was emphasized in the introduction to the article, it is one thing to declare yourself a titan and another to be one. Time has shown that when Khrushchev, who led neither more nor less than the Soviet Union, launched ballistic missiles in Cuba in 1961, he backtracked due to military miscalculations but also further. And he was wrong precisely because he behaved like a typical dictatorial leader who made a hasty political-military decision without consulting his military or political associates. And one proof of a China that is more rhetorical than combative is Taiwan, which, despite threats, continues to be independent and internationally unrecognized.

So in a few years we have reached the point of yesterday that, despite the drama of the statements and positions, still poses many, many major doubts such as: is BRICS a political-economic-military alliance with the same and equally determined goals? The chances are that it is not. It is enough to verify India's ambiguity in the global and regional scale, especially in the case of the US-Israel-Iran conflict. Therefore, Chinese rhetoric will not necessarily translate into irreversible actions. Time will of course tell which assumptions will advance on the concrete level, and until then we must wait patiently, but equally with the concern that the quiet times after the Cold War are already over.