As the fallout from the US-Israeli war on Iran widens, BRICS countries face mounting pressure to respond — but internal rifts and competing interests have put the bloc’s limitations on full display.
Tehran has urged the BRICS bloc of 11 emerging economies, currently chaired by India, to intervene in the US-Israel war with Iran.
Iran, which joined BRICS in 2024, is calling for a strong collective stance to condemn what it calls “military aggression,” and wants the bloc to play a greater role in supporting regional stability.
India has so far avoided taking sides in the conflict, urging restraint, deescalation and a return to dialogue — something analysts say Washington interprets as strategic positioning rather than solidarity with Iran.
“Some BRICS members are directly involved in the current situation in the West Asia region, which has impacted forging a consensus on a common BRICS position on the ongoing conflict,” Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.
“As chair of BRICS, India has been facilitating discussions among members through the Sherpa channel,” Jaiswal said, referring to the bloc’s main conduit for communication and coordination among member countries.
What can BRICS do?
Experts have noted that BRICS’s ability to respond is limited, despite Iran’s expectations.
The bloc’s expanded membership has deepened internal divisions, with Gulf nations such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia wary of Iran. Other governments are reluctant to take a stance that could be seen as opposing the United States.
Shanthie Mariet D’Souza, president of Mantraya, an independent research forum, told DW that, though the alliance has potential as a forum for dialogue, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect BRICS to issue a joint statement, let alone intervene in any manner.
“It can occur when the conflict reaches a hurting stalemate for the member countries,” D’Souza said. She added that Iran has had “inherent problems” with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
“It is difficult to establish a consensus since Iran itself is a party to the conflict, although mostly in response to the US-Israel aggression,” D’Souza said.
Energy stakes sharpen India’s dilemma
D’Souza said India, as BRICS chair, had a key role in building consensus, giving it the authority to issue a statement on behalf of the bloc.
“But, in the current geopolitical climate, any such move would have little impact on what the US and Israel are trying to achieve in Iran,” D’Souza said. She added that BRICS is incapable of even stating a principled position.
Meera Shankar, a former Indian ambassador to the United States, told DW that a consensus statement appears unlikely at this stage.
“BRICS is not an alliance of like-minded countries,” Shankar said. “It is a loose grouping with a broad-based agenda encompassing trade, development, economic cooperation and strengthening multilateralism.”
Shankar said there were many issues on which the bloc’s members — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran — find it worthwhile to work together, even as they may not agree on other issues.
India’s balancing act
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has spoken with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has had multiple calls with his Indian counterpart, S Jaishankar, about activating BRICS for stability and condemnation of US-Israeli strikes.
“Despite holding the BRICS presidency, New Delhi has remained relatively low-profile on the US-Israel war on Iran even after the assassination of the head of state of a BRICS member in clear violation of international norms,” Gulshan Sachdeva, professor at the Centre for European Studies of Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW.
“The unfolding war, including the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz on which India’s energy imports heavily depend, is forcing New Delhi to rethink its position,” he said, in reference to the disruption to shipping in the strategic waterway.
Sachdeva pointed out that Tehran has started allowing India-flagged vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz on a case-by-case basis, though it may expect reciprocal political signaling.
“Iran may expect a strong statement from BRICS, but India must also balance the positions of other regional members such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE,” Sachdeva said.
Both countries host US military bases and have faced Iranian strikes during the conflict.
“To a large extent, the outcome of India’s BRICS presidency will depend on whether it actively mobilizes the bloc against the attack on one of its members and pushes for deescalation or settles for low-profile procedural meetings with lackluster outcomes,” he said.
A bloc split by competing interests
The crisis has laid bare sharp divisions within BRICS, with members on opposing sides and India notably avoiding criticism of US-Israeli strikes.
Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian diplomat, told DW that the crisis in the Middle East “has exposed the political contradictions within the expanded BRICS.
“Its members are on opposing sides of a kinetic conflict, with Iran striking infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the UAE,” he said.
“India in its posture as chair defines BRICS as a ‘non-Western’ economic club,” Bisaria said, “rather than an ‘anti-Western’ security alliance.”
“The failure to issue a joint BRICS statement underlines the geopolitical limitations of the bloc and its economic ’emerging economy’ focus,” Bisaria said.
Bisaria emphasized that, as BRICS chair, India could potntially adopt a more forward-leaning posture.
Source : https://www.dw.com/en/us-israel-war-with-iran-shows-fault-lines-in-brics-alliance/a-76412378
