Iran war reshapes Brics ties but also exposes divisons

**Iran war reshapes Brics ties but also exposes divisions**

This weekend, some of the world’s most influential figures gathered in Delhi around a large circular table.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that, together, the leaders seated beside him should increasingly become “rule-shapers,” not “rule-takers.”

Among those present were members of the Brics group, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

These are far from natural allies. Their histories include border disputes and even military clashes.

India and China fought a deadly confrontation along their disputed border in 2020. Iran and the UAE have stood on opposite sides of the war in the Middle East, with Tehran firing missiles and drones at its fellow Brics member as the conflict sent shockwaves through global economies.

India’s ability to bring these leaders together in person was an achievement in itself and a sign of its diplomatic reach. The weekend also gave countries a chance to rethink their ties in the context of the Iran war.

But reaching agreement on what a new global order should look like, and producing clear, concrete results, proved much more difficult, and that strain ran through the summit.

For members such as China, Russia and Iran, Brics serves as a way to reduce the influence of the US and western Europe.

India, however, has been hesitant to portray Brics as an anti-Western bloc. Modi said at the summit that the group is “not against anyone”.

That difference is important for Delhi, which wants to maintain ties with countries that are at odds with one another.

“There are countries in the grouping which would like it to become anti-western, but it is not that,” says Anil Trigunayat, a veteran Indian diplomat and former ambassador. In his view, India has secured “strategic autonomy in an era of war” and pushed initiatives to “enhance greater collaboration amongst themselves”.

Several Brics members would have been reluctant to provoke US President Donald Trump’s anger.

The summit did manage to produce a joint declaration at a time when divisions among members have rarely been so visible.

Earlier this year, two meetings of Brics ministers failed to yield a joint statement. This time, consensus was reached by avoiding issues on which members strongly disagree, leaving few solutions.

The “New Delhi Declaration” was adopted on the summit’s first day. But what stands out is what it leaves out.

On the war in the Middle East, the declaration calls for “maximum restraint”. It also condemns “attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities” but does not assign blame.

It restates support for a two-state solution, opposes forced displacement of Palestinians or actions that could “legitimise or prolong occupation”, and frames the issue carefully around existing UN resolutions.

It says nothing at all about Russia’s war in Ukraine, unlike previous Brics declarations.

There is similar caution on trade. The declaration raises concerns about “indiscriminate rising tariffs” and condemns unilateral sanctions, but it does not name the US and is likely to avoid provoking Washington.

Several Brics members would have been unwilling to draw President Donald Trump’s anger, as he has previously described the group’s proposals, including possibly linking central-bank digital currencies for cross-border trade, as “anti-American”.

“Not mentioning any country by name, even as they condemned the conflict in the Middle East, bears the hallmark of India,” says Praveen Donthi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

“I was pleasantly surprised that there was a strong reference to tariffs, because India could have wanted to be less direct about it, but perhaps this was a chance to convey their displeasure,” he added.

Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian (right) and Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan held talks on the sidelines of the Brics summit.

In the wake of Trump’s trade threats and the shock of the war in the Middle East, reshaping the global order has become an urgent necessity for many member economies.

What the summit did offer was a setting for meetings that would have seemed difficult to imagine only a few months ago.

Iran’s Pezeshkian and Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince met for talks — the highest-level face-to-face meeting known between the two countries since the war began.

The weekend gave Tehran an opportunity to show that it is not isolated amid US and Israeli military attacks and economic pressure.

As Iran seeks to endure US sanctions, Washington’s “Operation Economic Outcast” and a naval blockade on its ports, Pezeshkian pushed for deeper economic ties with Brics members, including Malaysia, India and Ethiopia.

For China, this was President Xi’s first trip to Delhi in seven years. Mistrust between China and India has run deep since the 2020 border dispute, though tensions have eased. There is also a major trade imbalance, with the deficit heavily in China’s favour.

Xi and Modi exchanged a cordial handshake, not the latter’s trademark hug. Xi also stayed for less than 24 hours and skipped the gala dinner hosted by Modi on Saturday night.

Even so, the weekend marked an important moment for two countries with such a difficult relationship. According to official readouts, the two leaders agreed to strengthen business ties and transport links and to address barriers to trade.

Trigunayat sees this as part of a gradual warming in recent years, and says there is willingness on both sides to cooperate. But whether that will lead to meaningful progress remains uncertain.

“I always say we have to trust, but verify first,” he says.

The summit showed that Brics can create room for rivals to talk and manoeuvre outside Western-dominated institutions.

The tougher question is what comes next. It is clear that members believe a new global order is needed more than ever, but what should replace the current one — and how to get there — is far harder to answer.