Brics in Crisis: How the Iran War Exposes Global Power Shifts

The Gathering of Rivals

When India hosted the Brics summit in Delhi this weekend, it was not just about diplomacy—it was about redefining power. For the first time, leaders from China, Russia, Iran, South Africa, and the UAE found themselves seated together at a vast circular table. This wasn't a casual meeting; it was a bold attempt to build a counterweight to Western dominance in global governance.

But let's be clear: these nations are not natural allies. India and China have a history of border clashes, while Iran and the UAE have found themselves on opposing sides of the Middle East conflict. Yet here they were—trying to find common ground.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi framed it as a moment of strategic autonomy, saying that Brics should be about "rule-shapers," not "rule-takers." But the question remains: can these divergent interests truly align?

"We have to trust, but verify first," said veteran diplomat Anil Trigunayat. "This is part of a gradual warming of relations in recent years, and there is a will on both sides to work together. But whether it will produce substantial progress remains to be seen."

What the Declaration Left Out

The New Delhi Declaration, which was adopted during the summit, may have been a symbolic win for unity—but it also highlighted deep divisions.

When it came to the war in the Middle East, the declaration urged "maximum restraint" and condemned attacks on civilian infrastructure. But it stopped short of naming any specific country or assigning blame. This silence was no accident.

For members like India, the UAE, and even Iran, there was a clear need to avoid alienating powerful Western allies—especially given that Donald Trump's return to power looms as a potential threat to Brics initiatives. As one analyst put it: "Not mentioning any country by name, even as they condemned the conflict in the Middle East, bears the hallmark of India."

The same careful language applied to trade. While the declaration criticized rising tariffs and unilateral sanctions, it did not name the United States directly—a decision that likely reflects political calculations rather than a lack of concern.

What's more, there was no mention of Russia's war in Ukraine, another divergence among Brics members who are split on how to respond to this ongoing crisis. The result? A document that says very little and means even less when it comes to concrete action or shared vision.

Behind the Scenes: A New Dynamic

Despite the diplomatic silence in the main declaration, the weekend did yield some surprising developments. Most notably, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian held talks with Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan—a rare face-to-face meeting between two countries at odds since the war began.

These talks are significant not just for their timing but because they occurred amid Washington's intensified pressure on Iran. In fact, U.S. sanctions have tightened under Operation Economic Outcast, cutting off Iranian ports and deepening economic isolation. By contrast, Pezeshkian was actively seeking deeper ties with Brics members like Malaysia, India, and Ethiopia.

Meanwhile, the high-level meeting between China's President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi also signaled a thaw in relations after years of mistrust stemming from their 2020 border clash. Although the two leaders didn't embrace—Xi stayed less than 24 hours and skipped the gala dinner—their cordial handshake marked a symbolic step forward.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The real test lies ahead. As Trigunayat notes, progress in bilateral relations will require sustained efforts, more than just symbolic gestures or fleeting meetings.

The Real Challenge: A New World Order

The Brics summit underscored something crucial: these nations are united not by shared ideology but by a mutual desire to reshape the global system. But what exactly does that mean?

There's no shortage of ambition. Countries want to move beyond Western-dominated institutions like the IMF and World Bank. They're pushing for alternatives—like digital currencies, alternative trade systems, and a greater role in shaping global norms.

However, the road from vision to reality is long and riddled with challenges. How do you create consensus among nations with vastly different political systems, histories, and strategic priorities? And how do you avoid the same old pitfalls of division that have plagued international alliances?

This is where Brics faces its greatest test. While the summit succeeded in creating a platform for dialogue, it failed to deliver any meaningful solutions or actionable commitments.

What Comes Next?

The next few months will be telling. Will Brics move toward real collaboration on economic reform, or will internal friction keep it from fulfilling its potential? The answer lies in whether these nations can transcend their differences long enough to build a coherent alternative to the current global order.

As I observed during my time covering global affairs, the most important moments are rarely about grand declarations—they're about the quiet steps taken behind closed doors. If Brics wants to matter in the coming years, it needs to start making those kinds of moves now.

In the meantime, we're left with a group that has found its voice but hasn't yet figured out how to speak with one unified purpose.