Why the BRICS Meeting in New Delhi Exposed Deep Divisions Over the Iran War

From Tehran’s perspective, the request served several strategic goals:

• Demonstrating that BRICS can defend member states politically when they face Western military pressure or sanctions.
• Strengthening the bloc’s image as a voice for the "Global South" and an alternative to Western-led institutions.
• Building diplomatic support as the conflict threatens Iran’s economy and regional position.

Iran also stressed that the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global shipping route—remained open to commercial traffic, provided ships coordinate with Iranian naval forces, underscoring how closely the war is tied to global energy security.

India’s Balancing Act as Host

India found itself in a particularly delicate position as the meeting’s host and BRICS chair.

External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar emphasized the importance of "safe, unimpeded maritime flows" through international waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, signaling that New Delhi’s primary concern is protecting global trade and energy supply chains rather than escalating political confrontation.

India’s diplomacy reflects multiple strategic relationships:

• Close ties with the United States and growing cooperation with Western economies
• Longstanding relations with Iran, including energy links
• Partnerships with Gulf states and Israel

Taking a strong anti‑U.S. or anti‑Israel position could complicate several of those relationships, making cautious language the preferred approach.

Internal Divisions Across the BRICS Bloc

The difficulty of agreeing on a joint statement reflects deep differences among members.

China and Russia

China and Russia are generally more willing to criticize U.S. actions in international forums, and their broader geopolitical rivalry with Washington makes them more open to stronger language against Western intervention.

India

India tends to pursue strategic autonomy. It often avoids taking rigid positions in conflicts where it maintains important ties with both sides.

Gulf Members: UAE and Saudi Arabia

The position of Gulf states adds another layer of complexity. The United Arab Emirates—now a BRICS member—is geographically close to Iran and has its own security concerns related to regional tensions. Reports from Iranian officials suggested that a neighboring BRICS member was pushing for language condemning Tehran, highlighting friction inside the group.

Saudi Arabia’s role has also been uncertain in recent reporting on BRICS participation, and its close security and economic ties with the United States make it cautious about endorsing a statement perceived as strongly pro‑Iran.

Economic Stakes: Oil, Shipping, and Sanctions

The war’s economic implications also shaped the discussions.

• Energy markets: The conflict has pushed oil prices higher and raised fears about disruptions to supplies from the Gulf region.
• Shipping routes: The Strait of Hormuz carries a significant share of global oil trade, making maritime security a central concern for both exporters and importers.
• Sanctions exposure: Russia and Iran are heavily sanctioned, while countries such as India and the UAE maintain extensive financial ties with Western economies, limiting how far they are willing to confront Washington.

These diverging interests make unified policy responses particularly difficult.

Expansion Has Increased BRICS Influence—And Disagreement

The tensions seen in New Delhi highlight a structural challenge for the expanded BRICS bloc. While the organization has grown to include more emerging economies and represents a larger share of the global population and economy, the new members bring very different strategic alignments and regional rivalries.

That diversity can strengthen the group’s global influence, but it also makes consensus harder—especially when the issue involves an active military conflict.

The Most Likely Outcome: Cautious Diplomacy

Given these divisions, the most realistic outcome of the meeting was either a carefully worded statement calling for restraint and respect for international law, or difficulty agreeing on a strong unified declaration.

Such language would allow BRICS to emphasize stability, maritime security, and economic cooperation without forcing members to choose sides in one of the world’s most volatile geopolitical conflicts.

In that sense, the New Delhi meeting revealed both the promise and the limits of the expanded BRICS: a broader coalition of emerging powers, but one still searching for a shared diplomatic voice during global crises.