The growing conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel is creating one of the biggest diplomatic tests in the history of BRICS. What was once viewed as a powerful coalition of emerging economies seeking to challenge Western influence is now struggling to maintain internal unity as geopolitical tensions deepen across the Middle East.
The latest BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi ended without a joint position on the Iran conflict, exposing deep divisions within the bloc. For the second consecutive gathering hosted under India’s presidency, members failed to agree on a unified statement regarding the war involving Iran, the US, and Israel. The inability to reach consensus has raised serious questions about the future direction of BRICS and whether the organisation can function effectively as a political force while its members remain divided on critical global crises.
The situation matters far beyond the Middle East. The conflict is testing BRICS’s ambitions to become the leading voice of the Global South, a counterweight to Western-led institutions, and a platform for alternative diplomacy. Instead, the Iran war is revealing how difficult it is for a diverse alliance with competing interests to maintain solidarity during major international conflicts.
Understanding BRICS and Its Expanding Role
BRICS originally began as a grouping of five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The bloc was created to strengthen economic cooperation among non-Western nations and promote reforms in global institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund.
Over time, BRICS evolved from an economic discussion platform into a broader geopolitical coalition. The organisation increasingly presented itself as a representative of developing nations dissatisfied with Western dominance in international affairs.
The bloc expanded further in recent years by adding countries including Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia. Expansion was intended to increase BRICS’s global influence, economic weight, and diplomatic reach. However, the inclusion of countries with opposing strategic interests has also made consensus more difficult.
The Iran conflict is now highlighting those structural weaknesses.
The New Delhi Meeting and Diplomatic Breakdown
The BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting held in New Delhi became a symbol of the bloc’s growing internal tensions. Hosted by Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, the gathering aimed to strengthen coordination ahead of the BRICS leaders’ summit scheduled later this year.
Instead, the meeting became dominated by disagreements over the war involving Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi urged BRICS nations to condemn what Tehran described as US-Israeli aggression. Iran wanted the bloc to issue strong language against military strikes targeting Iranian territory and infrastructure.
However, the United Arab Emirates opposed such wording and instead pushed for condemnation of Iranian missile and drone attacks on Gulf infrastructure.
The disagreement proved impossible to resolve.
As a result, the final outcome document only acknowledged that “differing views” existed among member states. No unified condemnation of any side emerged. The final statement focused instead on general calls for diplomacy, dialogue, protection of civilians, and maritime security.
For a bloc that seeks greater global influence, the failure was highly significant.
Why the Iran Conflict Is Especially Difficult for BRICS
The Iran conflict presents unique challenges because it divides BRICS members across multiple political, economic, and strategic lines.
Unlike issues where BRICS members can unite around opposition to Western sanctions or calls for multipolarity, the Iran war directly affects member states in different and sometimes opposing ways.
Iran Wants Strong Political Backing
As a newly admitted BRICS member, Iran expected political support from fellow members. Tehran hoped BRICS would openly condemn US and Israeli military actions and support Iran’s claims regarding violations of international law.
Iran views BRICS as part of a broader strategy to reduce isolation caused by Western sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Tehran believes the bloc can help create an alternative international order less dependent on the United States and its allies.
The lack of a unified BRICS response therefore represents a diplomatic disappointment for Iran.
The UAE Has Different Security Interests
At the same time, United Arab Emirates has security concerns that differ sharply from Iran’s position.
The UAE maintains strong economic and security relations with the United States and also shares strategic concerns regarding Iranian regional influence. Emirati officials accused Iran of targeting civilian and energy infrastructure during the conflict.
Because both Iran and the UAE are now BRICS members, the organisation effectively contains two rival states directly involved in the same regional crisis.
That reality makes consensus extremely difficult.
India Wants Strategic Balance
India, which currently holds the BRICS presidency, is attempting to maintain neutrality.
India has long-standing ties with Iran, particularly regarding energy cooperation and regional connectivity projects. However, New Delhi also maintains close relations with the United States, Israel, and Gulf Arab countries.
Indian officials therefore avoided taking sides publicly.
Foreign Minister Jaishankar instead focused on broader themes such as maritime security, dialogue, and diplomacy. India’s cautious approach reflects its larger foreign policy strategy of balancing relations with competing global powers.
However, neutrality also limited India’s ability to forge consensus within BRICS.
China’s Complex Position
China remains one of the most influential BRICS members, but Beijing’s approach to the Iran conflict has been notably cautious.
Chinese leaders strongly oppose instability in the Middle East because China depends heavily on energy imports from the region. Rising tensions threaten oil supplies, shipping routes, and global economic stability.
At the same time, China does not want direct confrontation with the United States over Iran.
The timing of the BRICS meeting was particularly sensitive because it coincided with a major visit by US President Donald Trump to Beijing. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi skipped the BRICS meeting entirely, sending China’s ambassador to India instead.
That decision was interpreted by many analysts as evidence that China preferred to avoid becoming deeply entangled in BRICS disagreements over Iran during an important diplomatic moment with Washington.
China’s cautious behaviour also revealed the limits of BRICS solidarity when major national interests are involved.
Russia’s Position and Strategic Calculations
Russia has traditionally maintained strong ties with Iran and often criticises Western military interventions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended the meeting and supported broader criticism of unilateral sanctions and Western pressure.
However, Russia also avoided pushing aggressively for a direct confrontation within BRICS over the Iran issue.
Moscow faces its own geopolitical calculations. Russia benefits from maintaining close ties with Iran but also recognises the importance of keeping BRICS unified. A complete diplomatic breakdown within the bloc would weaken one of Russia’s most important international platforms outside Western influence.
Therefore, Russia appeared to support compromise language rather than forcefully backing Iran’s demands.
The Importance of the Strait of Hormuz
One major reason the Iran conflict affects BRICS so deeply is the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s decision to disrupt shipping routes created global concern because a significant portion of the world’s oil exports passes through the narrow waterway.
Countries such as China and India depend heavily on energy imports traveling through Hormuz. Rising tensions threaten energy security, increase shipping costs, and contribute to global inflation.
The conflict therefore directly affects BRICS economies.
India’s Jaishankar specifically emphasised the need for safe maritime flows through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. His comments reflected wider fears that prolonged instability could damage economic growth across developing nations.
The Challenge of Expansion
The Iran crisis is also exposing the hidden risks of BRICS expansion.
Adding new members increased the bloc’s geographic reach and economic influence, but it also introduced rivalries that are difficult to manage.
Iran and the UAE are not the only members with competing interests. Other BRICS nations also maintain different alignments regarding global security issues.
Some members have close ties with the United States. Others are strongly anti-Western. Some prioritise economic cooperation above politics, while others want BRICS to become a geopolitical alliance.
As membership expands, finding consensus becomes increasingly complicated.
The Iran conflict may therefore become a turning point in debates over whether BRICS should remain primarily an economic grouping or evolve into a more openly political organisation.
Can BRICS Still Claim To Represent the Global South?
One of BRICS’s core ambitions is representing the interests of the Global South.
The bloc frequently criticises Western dominance in global governance and argues that developing nations deserve greater influence in international decision-making.
However, critics argue that BRICS cannot effectively represent the Global South if it cannot even agree on major international crises affecting its own members.
The inability to produce a common statement on Iran weakens the image of BRICS as a unified diplomatic force.
Supporters of the bloc argue that diversity itself is a strength. They claim BRICS allows countries with different political systems and interests to cooperate without imposing ideological conformity.
Yet opponents say the Iran dispute demonstrates that BRICS lacks the institutional mechanisms needed to handle serious geopolitical conflicts.
Economic Cooperation Continues Despite Political Divisions
Despite disagreements over Iran, the New Delhi meeting was not entirely unsuccessful.
Member states reportedly reached agreement on more than 60 issues related to trade, climate cooperation, digital infrastructure, energy partnerships, and multilateral reform.
This outcome highlights an important reality about BRICS: economic cooperation often remains easier than political coordination.
Many members continue to see practical value in trade partnerships, investment initiatives, development financing, and reducing dependence on Western financial systems.
Even countries with political disagreements may still cooperate economically.
That balance between economic pragmatism and geopolitical division could define BRICS’s future trajectory.
India’s Diplomatic Balancing Act
India’s handling of the meeting attracted significant international attention.
As BRICS chair, New Delhi faced the difficult task of preventing open confrontation between Iran and the UAE while preserving the bloc’s unity.
India avoided openly supporting either side.
This approach reflects India’s broader foreign policy doctrine of strategic autonomy. New Delhi seeks strong ties with Western countries while also maintaining relations with Russia, Iran, and other non-Western powers.
India’s balancing strategy has helped it maintain flexibility in global affairs, but it also limits its ability to take firm leadership positions during divisive crises.
The BRICS meeting demonstrated both the strengths and weaknesses of that diplomatic model.
Pakistan’s Emerging Diplomatic Role
Pakistan has also emerged as an important regional player during the crisis.
Islamabad attempted to position itself as a mediator between Iran and the United States by hosting talks and maintaining communication with multiple sides.
Former Pakistani diplomat Jauhar Saleem argued that modern global politics increasingly favours flexible bilateral diplomacy over rigid bloc politics.
According to this perspective, organisations such as BRICS may struggle because member states ultimately prioritise national interests over collective positions.
Pakistan’s approach of engaging multiple powers simultaneously reflects a broader trend among middle powers seeking to navigate an increasingly fragmented international order.
The Role of the United States and Israel
The positions of the United States and Israel remain central to the entire crisis.
Iran insists that US and Israeli military actions triggered the conflict. Tehran wanted BRICS to explicitly condemn those operations.
However, several BRICS members maintain strong economic or security ties with Washington and were unwilling to endorse such language.
This reveals another key challenge for BRICS: although many members criticise aspects of Western power, they also remain economically connected to Western markets and institutions.
As a result, anti-Western unity inside BRICS often has practical limits.
Could the Conflict Damage BRICS Permanently?
The Iran dispute does not necessarily mean BRICS will collapse, but it does expose long-term vulnerabilities.
The bloc was never designed as a military alliance or ideological union. Its members differ widely in political systems, strategic priorities, and regional interests.
The main question is whether BRICS can continue functioning effectively despite those differences.
Several possibilities could emerge:
BRICS Remains Primarily Economic
One scenario is that BRICS focuses mainly on trade, finance, development, and institutional reform while avoiding divisive geopolitical positions.
This would reduce political tensions but also limit the bloc’s global influence.
BRICS Develops Flexible Diplomacy
Another possibility is that BRICS adopts a model where consensus is not required on every issue.
Members could cooperate selectively while accepting disagreements on major conflicts.
This approach might preserve unity but weaken perceptions of cohesion.
Internal Rivalries Intensify
A more negative scenario involves growing competition among members leading to repeated diplomatic deadlock.
If geopolitical disputes continue expanding within the bloc, BRICS could struggle to maintain relevance beyond symbolic summits.
The Broader Global Context
The Iran crisis is unfolding during a period of major transformation in global politics.
Traditional alliances are facing strain. Great power competition is intensifying. Regional conflicts are increasingly interconnected with global economic stability.
In this environment, organisations like BRICS face enormous pressure to prove their effectiveness.
Supporters view BRICS as a necessary alternative to Western-dominated institutions. Critics argue that internal contradictions make the bloc inherently unstable.
The events in New Delhi strengthened arguments on both sides.
Energy Markets and Global Economic Impact
The conflict’s economic effects are already spreading beyond the Middle East.
Rising oil prices, shipping disruptions, and fears over maritime security are affecting global markets. Developing countries are especially vulnerable because higher energy costs increase inflation and strain public finances.
BRICS nations themselves are deeply exposed to these pressures.
China and India are major energy importers. Russia is a major exporter. Gulf economies depend on regional stability. South Africa and Brazil face broader economic consequences from global market volatility.
This interconnectedness makes the Iran conflict more than just a regional dispute for BRICS. It has become a direct challenge to the bloc’s economic stability and political credibility.
Diplomacy Versus Ideology
Another major lesson from the BRICS dispute is the growing importance of pragmatic diplomacy over ideological unity.
Although many BRICS members share concerns about Western dominance, they do not necessarily share identical security priorities.
National interests continue to outweigh collective ideology.
This reality may shape the future of international coalitions more broadly. Countries increasingly prefer flexible partnerships rather than rigid alliances requiring full political alignment.
The Iran conflict demonstrates how difficult it is to sustain unity within large multinational blocs during real-world crises.
The Future of BRICS After the Iran Crisis
The upcoming BRICS leaders’ summit in India will likely face intense scrutiny.
Observers will watch closely to see whether member states can overcome divisions or whether disagreements deepen further.
The Iran conflict has become more than a regional war. It is now a major test of BRICS’s identity, purpose, and long-term viability.
Can the bloc function as a meaningful geopolitical force while containing rival states with opposing interests?
Can it maintain credibility as the voice of the Global South without unified positions on major global conflicts?
Can economic cooperation survive growing political fragmentation?
These questions will shape not only BRICS’s future but also the broader evolution of international politics in the coming years.
Read More: Trump and Xi move towards business-first relationship after Beijing summit
FAQs
Why did the BRICS meeting fail to produce a joint statement on Iran?
The meeting failed because member states held sharply different positions on the conflict. Iran wanted condemnation of US and Israeli actions, while the UAE demanded criticism of Iranian strikes on Gulf infrastructure. India and other members preferred neutral language focused on diplomacy.
Why is the Iran conflict important for BRICS?
The conflict matters because it tests BRICS’s unity and credibility as a global political bloc. It also affects energy markets, maritime trade routes, and regional stability, all of which are important for BRICS economies.
How does the Strait of Hormuz affect BRICS countries?
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes. Countries like China and India rely heavily on energy imports passing through it, so disruptions threaten economic stability and increase global oil prices.
What role is India playing in the BRICS dispute?
India is trying to maintain balance between competing sides. As BRICS chair, it has focused on dialogue, maritime security, and diplomacy rather than openly supporting either Iran or the UAE.
Could the Iran conflict weaken BRICS permanently?
The conflict may not destroy BRICS, but it has exposed internal divisions that could limit the bloc’s political effectiveness. Future cooperation may depend more on economic interests than on unified geopolitical positions.
Conclusion
The Iran conflict is becoming a serious problem for BRICS because it exposes the deep contradictions inside the organisation. While BRICS aims to present itself as a united alternative to Western-led institutions, the war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel has revealed how divided member states remain on critical geopolitical issues.Iran expected political backing from fellow BRICS nations, while the UAE pushed for condemnation of Iranian military actions. India attempted to maintain neutrality, China acted cautiously to protect broader strategic interests, and Russia balanced support for Iran with the need to preserve bloc unity. The result was diplomatic paralysis.For the second consecutive meeting, BRICS failed to issue a unified position on the conflict. That failure has raised broader questions about whether the bloc can function effectively as it expands and becomes more politically diverse.At the same time, BRICS members continue cooperating on trade, energy, climate issues, and development initiatives. This suggests that while political unity may remain elusive, economic cooperation still provides strong incentives for the bloc to survive.Ultimately, the Iran crisis is testing whether BRICS can evolve from a loose economic partnership into a coherent geopolitical force. The answer may determine not only the future of BRICS itself but also the shape of emerging global power structures in the years ahead.
