The Iran war reveals the limits of BRICS

What the report says

Al Jazeera opinion writer Ronny P Sasmita argues that the recent BRICS summit in New Delhi exposed the group’s difficulty in turning its economic size into unified geopolitical influence. According to the article, the summit ended without a direct response to the US-Israel war on Iran, even though the conflict affected many BRICS members and partners. The writer says the language chosen by the bloc showed a preference for preserving consensus over confronting the war head-on.

The piece notes that the problem was visible earlier, including at a May meeting of BRICS foreign ministers in New Delhi, which also failed to produce a common stance on Iran. The article highlights tension between members such as Iran and the UAE, whose regional interests diverge sharply. It presents BRICS expansion as both a source of broader reach and a reason for internal disagreement, since more members bring more conflicting priorities into the group.

The article also says BRICS countries differ on their relationship with the United States. India is described as seeking strategic flexibility rather than anti-US alignment, while China and Russia have their own reasons to avoid direct confrontation. Brazil and Indonesia are portrayed as favoring a more representative global system without wanting BRICS to become a tool for great-power rivalry.

The broader point is that BRICS may be better suited to bargaining for reforms in global institutions, development finance, and payment systems than acting as a single geopolitical bloc. The author suggests that this limitation may still leave the group with a meaningful role in gradually reshaping the international order.