Iran War Reshapes BRICS Ties but Also Exposes Divisions

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | September 13, 2026

The war involving Iran has become one of the most significant geopolitical tests for the BRICS grouping, strengthening ties between some of its members while exposing sharp differences over how far the bloc should go in confronting Western power.

The conflict has placed Iran — a relatively new BRICS member — at the center of discussions about the future direction of the expanded grouping. Russia and China have maintained close strategic relations with Tehran, while India has pursued a more cautious diplomatic position, seeking to preserve relationships with Iran, Russia, the United States and Europe simultaneously.

Those competing interests have made it difficult for BRICS to develop a single position on the war.

The divisions became particularly visible in May, when BRICS foreign ministers meeting in New Delhi failed to produce a joint statement amid disagreements over the conflict. Iran wanted the grouping to issue a stronger condemnation of the military action against it, while other members were reluctant to adopt language that could place them directly against Washington or its regional partners.

The situation is complicated further by the presence of Gulf countries inside the expanded BRICS framework. Iran and the United Arab Emirates have sharply different security interests, while Saudi Arabia has also maintained close relationships with the United States. That makes it difficult for BRICS to behave like a conventional political or military alliance.

Instead, the crisis has highlighted what BRICS actually is: a diverse coalition of countries seeking greater influence in a global system they believe remains dominated by Western institutions.

Iran finds greater strategic space

For Tehran, BRICS membership has taken on greater importance during the war.

Iran has sought diplomatic support from fellow members while facing pressure from the United States and its allies. Russia and China have emerged as particularly important partners, providing Tehran with political and economic relationships that help reduce its isolation.

The war has therefore accelerated a trend that was already underway: closer cooperation between Iran and some of the major powers inside BRICS.

But this does not mean that every BRICS country shares Iran’s strategic objectives.

India, for example, has emphasized dialogue and de-escalation rather than openly aligning itself with either side. Its position reflects a broader foreign-policy strategy designed to maintain partnerships across competing geopolitical camps.

That balancing act is increasingly important as New Delhi seeks to expand its influence across the Global South while maintaining economic and strategic relations with Western countries.

The September summit brings a different result

Despite the earlier divisions, BRICS leaders meeting in New Delhi in September managed to reach agreement on a joint declaration addressing the Middle East crisis.

The declaration called for maximum restraint and emphasized dialogue and diplomacy rather than escalation. The agreement was significant because Iran sits within the same organization as countries with very different relationships with Tehran, including the UAE.

The consensus demonstrated that BRICS can still find common ground even when its members disagree over the causes of a conflict or the appropriate response.

But the carefully negotiated language also revealed the limits of that unity.

Rather than transforming BRICS into a collective security organization, the declaration relied on broad principles such as sovereignty, diplomacy and opposition to unilateral measures. That approach allowed countries with conflicting interests to remain inside the same political framework.

A bloc caught between cooperation and confrontation

The Iran war has also intensified a larger debate about what BRICS wants to become.

China and Russia have promoted a stronger multipolar international system and greater independence from Western-led institutions. China has also pushed for deeper economic and technological cooperation within the expanded bloc, including work on supply chains, industrial cooperation, artificial intelligence and alternative financial mechanisms.

Other members, however, are more cautious about turning BRICS into an explicitly anti-Western organization.

India’s position is particularly important. New Delhi wants BRICS to strengthen the voice of developing countries and reform international institutions, but it has little interest in turning the group into another military or ideological alliance.

That difference could determine BRICS’ future.

If the organization becomes primarily a vehicle for opposing the United States and Europe, some members may become uncomfortable with its direction. If it remains focused on economic cooperation, development and reform of global institutions, it has a better chance of accommodating countries with competing foreign policies.

The real test is what comes next

The Iran war has therefore produced a paradox for BRICS.

On one hand, the conflict has strengthened relationships among countries seeking alternatives to Western economic and political dominance. It has increased the importance of Russia-China-Iran cooperation and given Tehran a wider diplomatic platform.

On the other hand, the war has demonstrated that BRICS members do not share a single worldview.

The grouping contains countries with competing regional interests, different relationships with Washington and different economic priorities. Its ability to reach consensus on Iran does not erase those differences.

The New Delhi summit may ultimately prove that BRICS does not need complete political unity to become more influential. Its strength could instead lie in its ability to keep countries with opposing interests at the same table.

But that model has limits.

As geopolitical crises multiply — from Iran and the wider Middle East to Ukraine and growing US-China competition — BRICS will increasingly be judged not by the size of its membership, but by whether it can translate its growing economic weight into effective diplomacy and practical cooperation.

The Iran war has shown that the bloc is becoming more important. It has also shown that becoming more important does not necessarily mean becoming more united.

For BRICS, that contradiction may define the next stage of its development.