The Iran war reveals the limits of BRICS

Al Jazeera | Ronny P Sasmita

The 2026 BRICS summit in New Delhi concluded without directly addressing the United States-Israel war on Iran or condemning Washington, highlighting severe structural constraints within the expanded eleven-member bloc. Earlier in May, foreign ministers failed to forge a consensus position due to sharp internal divisions between Tehran and Abu Dhabi.

That diplomatic impasse underscored how geographic expansion imports regional rivalries directly into the organization. Members maintain fundamentally divergent strategic postures toward Washington rather than operating as a unified geopolitical counterweight. India prioritizes its strategic autonomy through Quad participation alongside diplomatic ties with Moscow and Beijing. China seeks financial multipolarity and international institutional reform without risking crucial export markets in the West. Meanwhile, Russia avoids direct military confrontation with NATO forces. This polycentric trap caps collective security action. Consequently, BRICS remains functionally limited to economic coordination, local-currency settlement mechanisms, and incremental multilateral development finance reforms across the Global South.

Comment

The divergence within BRICS over Middle Eastern security crisis management exposes the institutional ceiling of consensus-based diplomatic groupings that lack binding mutual defence commitments. Unlike structured military pacts such as NATO or the Collective Security Treaty Organization, multi-regional coalitions built around shared economic grievances inevitably fracture when faced with active state-on-state conflict. This structural friction dilutes operational alignment across heterogeneous diplomatic blocs, as demonstrated by the Gulf Cooperation Council during the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis.

The procedural mechanism enforcing this constraint is the strict unanimity rule established in the 2011 Sanya Declaration. Because every sovereign member holds effective veto authority, specific national security concerns—such as Emirati objections regarding Iranian regional military activity—preclude unified bloc declarations. Consequently, consensus requirements restrict BRICS security outputs to lowest-common-denominator wording, mirroring the diplomatic gridlock observed at the 2023 Johannesburg Summit.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor poses a greater structural barrier to consensus within non-aligned diplomatic blocs: the strict unanimity voting mechanism established in foundational agreements like the 2011 Sanya Declaration, or the divergent threat perceptions of newly admitted regional rivals?

The trajectory indicates that divergent threat perceptions among expanded member states present the far more decisive barrier to consensus. While voting protocols like the 2011 Sanya Declaration unanimity mandate create procedural friction, they merely codify the fundamental strategic incompatibilities between rival members. Consequently, procedural reforms alone cannot produce operational alignment when core national security interests directly conflict.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here