BRICS Fails to Unite as Iran War Exposes Internal Divisions

The Limits of Multipolarity: BRICS and the Persian Gulf Conflict

The war in the Persian Gulf, now entering its third week, is exposing a fundamental weakness within the BRICS economic and political bloc. Despite positioning itself as a potential counterweight to U.S. Influence and a champion of a multipolar world order, BRICS has yet to issue a joint statement regarding the escalating conflict between Iran and the United States and Israel. This silence, as noted by Foreign Policy, isn’t a surprise to observers familiar with the inherent tensions within the group, tensions now sharply illuminated by the crisis. The inability to forge a unified response underscores the enduring power of national interests over the promise of transnational solidarity.

A Forum Divided: National Interests Trump Collective Action

The current impasse within BRICS isn’t simply a matter of differing opinions; it reflects deep-seated strategic alignments. While Iran, a BRICS member since the 2024 expansion, finds itself directly targeted by military action, other members maintain close ties with Washington and Jerusalem. India, for example, has cultivated “strong partnerships with Israel,” as highlighted in a recent Foreign Policy analysis and is unlikely to publicly condemn its ally. Similarly, some BRICS nations are reportedly working closely with U.S. Military operations in the region. This divergence in approach highlights a core problem: BRICS members remain sovereign actors prioritizing their own national interests, even when those interests clash with the collective goals of the bloc.

Structural Rivalries: The Iran-UAE Divide

Beyond individual bilateral relationships, the conflict is complicated by a fundamental structural rivalry within BRICS itself. The strategic divide between Iran and conservative Gulf monarchies, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also a BRICS member, is proving insurmountable. Iran has consistently positioned itself in opposition to the United States since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, while the UAE and its regional partners have long been security partners with Washington. This inherent antagonism makes a unified BRICS stance on the conflict virtually impossible. The expectation of a cohesive response, was always “little basis in reality,” according to Foreign Policy.

Historical Echoes: The Failure of Transnational Solidarity

The BRICS predicament isn’t unique. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, numerous attempts to forge transnational solidarity – pan-Asianism, pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, communist internationalism, and the Non-Aligned Movement – have encountered similar limitations. These movements often flourish during periods of collective grievance, but fracture when real crises demand tricky choices between collective ideals and national interests. The Comintern, established in 1919 to coordinate a global revolution, famously faltered when Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany in 1939, instructing communist parties worldwide to treat fascism as a neutral power. This pragmatic shift, prioritizing Soviet national security, ultimately led to the Comintern’s dissolution in 1943.

Regional Organizations and the Limits of Unity

The pattern extends beyond ideological movements to regional organizations. Pan-Arabism, championed by Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, saw the brief creation of the United Arab Republic in 1958, uniting Egypt and Syria. However, the union collapsed within three years due to Syrian resentment of Egyptian dominance. Similarly, the Arab League has struggled to act collectively on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite widespread Arab solidarity with Palestine. The 1973 oil embargo remains a rare example of unified Arab action, but even that cohesion proved short-lived. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 Muslim-majority states, similarly produces declarations of unity but rarely translates them into decisive action, as evidenced by conflicts between Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan. Even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), often cited as a successful regional grouping, is hampered by its consensus-based decision-making process, preventing a collective condemnation of Chinese pressure in the South China Sea, despite concerns voiced by member states like the Philippines.

Venezuela and Latin American Divisions

Recent events in Latin America further illustrate this dynamic. Following U.S. Intervention in Venezuela in January, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States convened an emergency meeting, but failed to reach a consensus, with right-leaning governments opposing any condemnation of Washington’s actions. This demonstrates that even within geographically and culturally aligned regions, national interests often outweigh collective aspirations.

BRICS’ Current Position and India’s Role

BRICS now appears to be following a similar trajectory. As the current chair of the grouping, India is focused on ensuring the safety of Indian shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, engaging in bilateral discussions with Iran’s foreign minister rather than attempting to orchestrate a collective response. This pragmatic approach underscores the limitations of BRICS as a cohesive geopolitical force. The global system, fundamentally, remains a collection of sovereign nation-states accountable to domestic constituencies and prioritizing security and prosperity. Transnational solidarity, while rhetorically appealing, often proves insufficient when confronted with concrete national interests.

What’s Confirmed vs. Unclear

Confirmed: BRICS has not issued a joint statement on the Persian Gulf conflict. Several BRICS members have diverging interests and relationships with the involved parties (U.S., Israel, Iran). Historical precedents demonstrate the difficulty of maintaining transnational solidarity when national interests are at stake. Unclear: The long-term impact of the conflict on BRICS’ credibility and future cohesion. Whether India, as chair, will attempt further mediation efforts. The extent to which the conflict will exacerbate existing tensions within the bloc.

Looking Ahead: Procedural Next Steps and Limited Expectations

Given the current dynamics, a unified BRICS statement on the Persian Gulf conflict remains highly improbable. The organization is likely to continue functioning as a forum for bilateral discussions and the articulation of national positions, rather than a cohesive geopolitical actor. The focus for BRICS members will likely remain on mitigating the conflict’s impact on their individual economic and security interests, particularly regarding energy supplies and trade routes. The grouping’s future effectiveness will depend not on its ability to overcome fundamental disagreements, but on managing expectations and focusing on areas of genuine consensus, such as economic cooperation and reform of global financial institutions. The current crisis serves as a stark reminder that the promise of a multipolar world order, while appealing, is often constrained by the enduring realities of national interest and geopolitical competition.