BRICS Meets Reality in the Middle East War

Foreign Policy | C. Raja Mohan

The Middle East war involving Iran has exposed deep strategic divisions within the BRICS alliance, highlighting the persistent failure of transnational solidarity among its member states. This escalating conflict forces key members, including China, Russia, India, and Gulf nations, to prioritize individual national interests over collective bloc diplomacy.

Historically, the heterogeneous bloc has attempted to project a unified alternative to Western-led global governance, yet its recent expansion to include competing regional powers has exacerbated internal friction. As the United States under the Trump administration intensifies economic and military pressure on Tehran, individual member states must navigate highly divergent economic, diplomatic, and maritime security imperatives. National energy security overrides collective political rhetoric. Ultimately, this severe crisis demonstrates that regional security shocks inevitably fragment non-Western coalitions, forcing individual capitals to pursue unilateral diplomatic paths that undermine the group's cohesive global leverage.

Comment

The escalation of hostilities in the Persian Gulf exposes the structural fragility of the expanded BRICS bloc, demonstrating that shared anti-hegemonic rhetoric cannot override divergent national security imperatives. While the accession of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates was intended to consolidate non-Western geopolitical weight, the active conflict directly pits the security of Gulf energy exporters against Tehran's regional strategy. This friction prevents BRICS from establishing a coherent security architecture, as member states remain dependent on bilateral arrangements rather than collective mechanisms. Consequently, the BRICS bloc's diplomatic utility is confined to symbolic declarations rather than functional crisis management.

A critical downstream consequence of this fragmentation is the reinforcement of bilateral security dependencies on the United States by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Despite their nominal alignment with Beijing and Moscow within BRICS, both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi continue to rely on the U.S. Fifth Fleet to secure maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz. This operational reality ensures that the U.S. Navy's command of the region's maritime chokepoints remains unchallenged, even as economic ties between the Gulf and Asia continue to expand.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the U.S. Fifth Fleet remains the sole guarantor of maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz, does the economic expansion of BRICS in the Gulf carry genuine geopolitical weight, or does it merely mask a persistent security dependency?

The current trajectory indicates that economic integration within BRICS cannot compensate for the lack of a credible, non-Western maritime security provider in the Persian Gulf. While Beijing has expanded its commercial footprint, it has shown no willingness to assume the operational risks or financial costs associated with policing the Strait of Hormuz. Consequently, Gulf capitals will likely continue to treat BRICS as a platform for diplomatic hedging while maintaining their core security alignment with Washington.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here