BRICS Divided Over US-Israel War on Iran After India's Chairmanship

The BRICS bloc has not issued a unified response to the United States-Israel war on Iran, exposing divisions within the coalition as member states balance geopolitical alliances, economic ties and domestic priorities.

The lack of a collective statement is notable because the 11-member bloc, which includes Iran, had previously spoken out quickly during the 12-day Israel-Iran war in June last year. At that time, when Brazil chaired BRICS, the group condemned U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran as a violation of international law.

Since India assumed the BRICS chairmanship in December 2025, however, the organization has remained silent about Operation Epic Fury, the U.S.-Israeli military campaign involving missile and drone strikes on Iranian targets. The attacks killed more than 1,230 people during the first six days.

Although BRICS has not issued a joint position, several member states have responded individually. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called for an immediate ceasefire, warning that the conflict could spread beyond the Middle East. “We want a ceasefire, we want this madness to come to an end,” he said while addressing reporters.

The African National Congress (ANC), the governing party in South Africa, earlier condemned what it described as “anticipatory self-defence based on assumption or conjecture” by the United States and Israel.

Russia also strongly criticized the attacks. In a message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, President Vladimir Putin condemned the strikes and the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Russia’s foreign ministry described the attacks as “premeditated and unprovoked acts of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state.”

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered a similar message during a phone call with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, stating that Beijing “opposes any military strikes launched by Israel and the US against Iran.”

India, which currently chairs BRICS, has adopted a more cautious stance. Three days after the first strikes, New Delhi’s Ministry of External Affairs called for diplomacy and an end to the conflict but avoided direct criticism of Washington or Tel Aviv.

“India strongly reiterates its call for dialogue and diplomacy. We share our voice clearly in favour of an early end to the conflict,” the ministry said.

India’s restrained position reflects complex geopolitical calculations. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel on February 25 and 26, 2026, where he met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and addressed the Knesset.

During the visit, Modi declared: “India stands with Israel, firmly, with full conviction, in this moment and beyond.”

The two governments signed agreements on defense cooperation and artificial intelligence, reinforcing a strategic partnership. Israel currently sends about 40 percent of its arms exports to India.

India also faces economic considerations. Following a trade dispute with the United States in August 2025, Washington reduced tariffs on Indian goods from 50 percent to 18 percent after negotiations tied partly to India’s energy purchases.

The internal differences within BRICS come as the organization expands its global ambitions.

Originally formed in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the bloc expanded in 2024 to include Indonesia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, bringing membership to 11 countries.

More broadly, the grouping has grown into a wider network involving 19 participating nations, positioning itself as a counterweight to Western-led institutions such as the Group of Seven (G7).

Economic comparisons highlight the rivalry. BRICS countries collectively account for about 40 percent of global nominal GDP and 41 percent of purchasing power parity (PPP) output, while the G7 retains roughly 44 percent of nominal global GDP.

BRICS members have also promoted de-dollarization, increased trade in local currencies, and expanded economic coordination as part of their broader strategic agenda.

Despite those ambitions, analysts say the differing responses to the Iran conflict illustrate the challenge of building consensus among states with divergent geopolitical interests.