Navarro’s Swipe at BRICS: America’s Double Standards and the Deep State Playbook

By Sanjeev Oak

Peter Navarro’s tirade against BRICS as “vampires sucking our blood dry” is more than rhetorical excess. It exposes America’s anxieties, its double standards on trade with Russia, and the deeper playbook of a U.S. establishment addicted to control.

The Noise and the Nerve

Every few months, an American voice re-emerges to scold India, Russia, China, or the broader BRICS grouping. This time it was Peter Navarro, former Trump aide, branding BRICS as parasitic and unsustainable. His language was loud, even theatrical. Yet behind the noise lies a real nerve: Washington’s unease with a world no longer willing to be dictated to.

India, with its insistence on autonomy—buying discounted Russian oil, joining BRICS and SCO summits, refusing to toe NATO’s sanctions line—has become the lightning rod for such attacks. But what Navarro does not admit is that the United States itself plays a very different game, one built on double standards abroad and deep state designs at home.

The Energy Hypocrisy

The sharpest example of U.S. double standards today lies in energy trade.

Since the Ukraine war began, Washington has loudly condemned India for purchasing Russian crude. American officials paint this as morally untenable, a betrayal of democratic solidarity. Navarro’s words fit neatly into this narrative.

Yet, quietly, American firms have imported Russian fertilizers, while European allies—from Germany to Hungary—continue to buy massive quantities of Russian LNG. The United States itself only stopped direct imports under political pressure, but has allowed indirect flows via trading hubs.

“What is condemned in Delhi is condoned in Berlin or Brussels.”

The hypocrisy is clear: when it comes to European stability, Russian energy is tolerated; when it comes to Indian affordability, it is denounced. Washington’s real problem is not India’s oil trade, but India’s independence.

The BRICS Threat

Navarro’s attack on BRICS as “doomed” reflects another anxiety. For decades, the U.S. enjoyed unrivalled control over global finance via the IMF, World Bank, and the dollar system. BRICS—by creating alternative funding channels, promoting local currency trade, and even discussing a joint reserve asset—directly threatens that dominance.

India’s participation is especially uncomfortable for Washington. Unlike China or Russia, India is a democracy, deeply engaged with the West, yet unafraid to back BRICS initiatives. This makes it harder for Washington to paint the group as an authoritarian bloc.

Navarro’s shrillness, then, is less about BRICS’ weaknesses than about its symbolic success: it shows the world that alternatives exist.

The Deep State Playbook

But there is a deeper layer to such attacks: America’s entrenched policy machinery, often described as the “deep state.”

The phrase refers not to conspiracies but to a pattern: the permanent security, intelligence, and foreign policy establishment that outlasts presidents and executes long-term strategies of dominance. Its hallmark is the destabilization of governments that refuse to align.

Across history, the evidence is stark.

Iran, 1953: Oil and Obedience

In 1951, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, challenging British and American oil interests. The response was swift. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup (Operation Ajax), toppling Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah.

The justification was Cold War containment. The reality was oil. Washington could not tolerate a government using sovereignty to regulate resources.

The playbook—destabilization in the name of stability—was born.

Chile, 1973: Democracy Overthrown

Two decades later, the target was Chile. Salvador Allende, the world’s first democratically elected Marxist president, pursued nationalization of copper mines and socialist redistribution.

The U.S. “deep state” response: economic strangulation (“make the economy scream”) followed by support for General Pinochet’s coup in 1973. The dictatorship that followed was brutal, but American corporations regained access to Chilean markets.

 “When Washington preaches democracy, it often means democracy until the ballot box delivers the wrong result.”

Iraq, 2003: Weapons and Wars

In the 21st century, the playbook evolved but the core remained. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction. None were found, but the U.S. invaded anyway. The real motivations included oil access, regional dominance, and regime change.

The aftermath was chaos, civil war, and the rise of ISIS. But for the deep state, the mission—removing a government unwilling to bend—was accomplished.

India’s Turn?

Today, India’s defiance on Russia, energy, and multipolar engagement has not led to coups or invasions, but the tactics of pressure are visible. U.S. think tanks amplify criticism of India’s democracy. Sanctions rhetoric is dangled. Aid and trade levers are hinted at. Navarro’s tirade is simply the loudest echo of this larger machinery.

India is no Iran or Chile; it is too large, too pivotal, too resilient. Yet the deep state logic applies: punish disobedience, reward compliance, and constantly remind rising powers of their “place” in the hierarchy.

The American Double Bind

The problem for Washington is that its methods no longer carry the same weight. Countries today have options. India can buy Russian oil, trade in rupees, explore BRICS credit lines, and still host U.S. defense exercises.

This flexibility was unimaginable during the Cold War. It is why Navarro’s words sound so desperate—they signal frustration, not confidence.

 “Strategic autonomy is not anti-American; it is anti-hegemony.”

The Russia Trade Paradox

Another double bind lies in U.S.–Russia trade itself. Even as Washington condemns India, its own allies continue lucrative ties. France and Germany lobby for exemptions on energy imports. Turkey, a NATO member, has doubled trade with Russia.

The U.S. never calls these governments “vampires.” Only when India asserts the same rights does morality suddenly appear. This selectivity reveals the core principle of U.S. foreign policy: what matters is not the act, but who performs it.

Lessons from History

The historical record is instructive. America’s deep state often wins battles but loses legitimacy.

• In Iran, resentment of the Shah’s U.S.-backed rule fueled the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
• In Chile, Pinochet’s dictatorship tarnished America’s image as a defender of democracy.
• In Iraq, the absence of WMDs destroyed U.S. credibility.

Today, if Washington seeks to isolate BRICS by denouncing India, it risks repeating the cycle: short-term pressure, long-term alienation.

India’s Response

India’s best response has been consistency. It has refused to yield on energy autonomy, defended BRICS participation, and simultaneously deepened ties with the U.S. through Quad and defense deals. This balance frustrates the deep state because it resists categorization: India is neither a client state nor an adversary.

This is precisely the model of multipolarity that threatens U.S. hegemony. It shows other nations—from Africa to Latin America—that alternatives are possible.

The Road Ahead

The Navarro outburst will not be the last. In the coming years, expect more attacks on India’s democracy, more pressure on energy ties, more skepticism about BRICS. The deep state will not abandon its playbook easily.

But the world has changed. India is not Iran in 1953 or Chile in 1973. It is a billion-strong democracy with global clout, economic leverage, and strategic autonomy. The more Washington tries to box it in, the more it risks pushing India toward precisely the multipolar world it fears.

Final word

Peter Navarro’s rant tells us less about BRICS and more about America. It reveals the double standards of energy hypocrisy. It exposes the persistence of the deep state playbook. And it confirms what history already teaches: that when Washington preaches morality but practices monopoly, the world sees through the act.

India does not need America’s approval to chart its course. Strategic autonomy, once mocked as hedging, is now the only rational response to a world where double standards remain the coin of the realm.