India Fails To Forge BRICS-MENA Consensus On Iran Conflict, Issues Chair Summary

New Delhi: India failed to persuade Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) and (Middle East and North Africa) MENA members to reach a consensus on the US-Israel war against Iran. At the conclusion of the BRICS-MENA meeting at the deputy foreign ministerial level in New Delhi, India, which currently holds the chair of the BRICS grouping, was forced to issue a Chair’s summary rather than a joint statement.

Senior diplomats saw the Chair’s statement, which reflects a summary of the positions of various members within the grouping, as both “cautious” and “non-controversial,” with the general statement simply stating that member states had expressed “deep concern” over the ongoing conflict. The statement recently released by the MEA said, “Members expressed deep concern on the recent conflict in the Middle East (West Asia) and offered views and assessments on the matter.”

The inability to persuade member states to agree was not surprising, given that Iran and the UAE, both BRICS members, along with Russia, China, and India, hold differing views on the Iran war. This was despite a statement released by the Iranian embassy on X. Referring to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s telephonic conversation with Prime Minister Modi on March 21, the statement “called for the group to play an independent role in halting aggressions against Iran and in safeguarding regional and international peace and stability.”

So far, this has not happened for a number of reasons. Differing views aside, a senior diplomat who focuses on international organisations believes that New Delhi faces its own challenges but also opts for more traditional diplomacy. “Our style of diplomacy is different. We focus on maintaining the cohesion of the grouping rather than pushing any agenda. This results in a non-confrontational and cautious statement that can then be worked upon and polished at the foreign ministerial level scheduled for May. This keeps everyone in the room and assures smaller members that their concerns are reflected.”

New Delhi’s cautious approach can be contrasted with China, which has used BRICS to set the agenda. In 2022, China got member nations to agree to the Beijing Declaration, where multiple drafts were worked upon at lower levels before finally being adopted at the head-of-state level. The Ukraine war had broken out while the Declaration was being framed, and some diplomats contend China did well to balance its support for Russia while maintaining its long-held position of “support for sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Such a statement was viewed as important, as it showed countries with diverse positions could come together for a unified stance at a time of geopolitical crisis. Diplomats warn against reading too much into the Chinese approach today. BRICS had only five nations in 2022, and the grouping expanded in 2023 with invitations issued to Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Argentina has since backed out, and Indonesia has joined the grouping, which comprises 11 fullmember states today. Any chair would find it difficult to persuade the group to take a strong stand now.

This raises the question of BRICS’s relevance today. Diplomats say a common misconception is to compare the grouping with the EU, which offers a common market and FTAs, unlike BRICS. Its ambit remains that of an alternative framework, pushing intra-BRICS trade and promoting trade in local currencies. This has partially happened between India and Russia, China and Russia, and India and the UAE. Such trade has by no means reduced dependence on the US dollar but has shown US-sanctioned countries that alternatives exist—something crucial for Russia and Iran. In intra-BRICS trade, the message is clearer.

A study released by UN Trade and Development in 2026 shows intraBRICS trade increased from $84 billion in 2003 to $1.17 trillion in 2024, reflecting an annual growth of 13.3%. Today, intra-BRICS trade accounts for 20% of Global South-South trade. Another strong reason for BRICS’s importance is the stance it takes. Diplomats believe the grouping has consistently critiqued institutions such as the UN and IMF as Western-led and has called for multilateral global governance. They contend that while it may be imperfect, it does so consistently, and BRICS statements are taken note of in the West. This is less true of the G77, the SCO, ASEAN, and the African Union, ensuring that despite criticisms, a cohesive BRICS remains essential for the Global South.