Iran urged fellow BRICS nations to condemn the US and Israel for what it described as violations of international law, as foreign ministers from the expanded bloc met in New Delhi on Thursday against the backdrop of the ongoing Middle East conflict.
Originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, BRICS has grown in recent years to include Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the UAE and Indonesia.
The two-day meeting, chaired by India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, is aimed at preparing for the BRICS leaders’ summit scheduled for September. The discussions come amid continued tensions in West Asia following the US-Israeli attack on Iran on Feb. 28.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi criticized what he called “Western hegemony” and Washington’s “sense of entitlement,” urging BRICS members to take a unified stand.
“That false sense of entitlement must be shattered by all of us,” Araghchi said. “Iran therefore calls upon BRICS member states and all responsible members of the international community to explicitly condemn violations of international law by the United States and Israel, including their illegal aggression against Iran, a member of BRICS.”
He said Iran viewed BRICS as representing “the emergence of a new global order” in which the Global South plays a larger role, and called on the bloc to resist the politicization of international institutions and act against “warmongering.”
Dhananjay Tripathi, associate dean at the international studies faculty of South Asian University, said Iran’s appeal was rooted in international law and reflected broader concerns among developing nations.
“When developing countries are facing enormous pressure, particularly from the United States, BRICS has a responsibility to at least express concern that the sovereignty of a developing country has been violated,” he told Arab News.
Opening the meeting, Jaishankar said the gathering was taking place during a period of “considerable flux in international relations,” with talks focusing on regional crises, global governance and strengthening cooperation among member states.
“The conflict in West Asia merits particular attention,” he said. “Continuing tensions, risks to maritime traffic, and disruptions to energy infrastructure highlight the fragility of the situation.”
He stressed that uninterrupted shipping through key waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea remained essential for global economic stability.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the conflict has disrupted a major global energy corridor, fueling volatility in oil markets and increasing pressure on energy-importing economies worldwide.
Still, analysts say BRICS is unlikely to reach a unified position on the Iran conflict because of differing interests among member states.
Muddassir Quamar, associate professor at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said consensus on the war itself appeared unlikely.
“It would be difficult to reach a consensus given the divergences among member states, and it is unlikely to generate any unanimous statement on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East,” he said.
However, Quamar noted that the group could still find common ground on issues such as global governance, multilateralism, sustainability and food security.
Prof. Harsh V. Pant, vice president at Observer Research Foundation, described the Delhi meeting as significant because it brings together major geopolitical actors including Russia, China, Iran and the UAE during a period of heightened global tensions.
Pant said BRICS could use the platform to encourage peace efforts and call for open access to strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz.
“The main focus of the meeting will remain on how BRICS can highlight the challenges of global governance at a time when geopolitical contestation is intensifying and large parts of the world feel unheard,” he said.
While Pant does not expect the bloc to issue a statement directly targeting the US, he said a broader message criticizing unilateralism and the weakening of multilateral institutions was likely.
“There’s certainly going to be some reference to the decline of multilateralism and the rise of unilateral tendencies in global politics,” he said. “It would not be US-specific; it would be more generic.”
Comments are closed.