India’s effort to forge a unified BRICS position on the escalating Iran-Israel conflict has hit a significant obstacle, with MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal acknowledging on March 14, 2026, that a common position remains “elusive” due to “differing views” among member nations, according to reporting by the Economic Times and Indian Express.
The difficulty reflects the unprecedented internal tension within the expanded BRICS grouping. Iran, which joined BRICS in 2024, has requested that India issue a statement on behalf of the bloc condemning US and Israeli military strikes, according to the research documents. However, other BRICS members including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates host US military installations on their territory and have themselves been targeted by Iranian missiles and drones in the current conflict. This structural contradiction has placed New Delhi in a position where supporting any one member’s position would antagonise others.
India’s Facilitation Role
India, which holds the BRICS chair in 2026, has facilitated discussions through the Sherpa channel, including a virtual meeting held on March 12, 2026. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has held multiple phone conversations with Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi to discuss what official communications described as “BRICS-related issues” and the need for regional stability, according to ANI and the research documents. Iranian leadership has separately signalled sympathy for India’s energy needs, with Tehran indicating that neutral Indian vessels would be permitted passage through the Strait of Hormuz despite broader restrictions, according to Times of India.
The BRICS grouping now comprises nine full members — the original five plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE from the 2024 expansion, and Indonesia from 2025 — along with nine partner countries, according to the research documents. The bloc collectively represents approximately 40% of global GDP and 26% of global trade, according to the same sources, making the absence of a unified political position on a major conflict consequential for its institutional credibility.
