An actor who has the ability to confront the greatest powers
In New Delhi, the foreign ministers of the world's largest developing economies gathered not merely to manage a crisis, but to reckon with what it revealed: that a US military strike on Iran had not diminished Tehran but elevated it, transforming a sanctioned and isolated state into a symbol of resistance that commands new respect among non-Western powers. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's answer to the assault, has distributed pain unevenly across the BRICS coalition — enriching Russia, straining India and Indonesia, and exposing the UAE's quiet entanglement with Washington and Tel Aviv. What the summit ultimately illuminated is the contour of a world in which American military action can ignite a crisis but no longer dictate its resolution.
- Iran's survival of a US military strike has reordered the room — BRICS delegates arrived in New Delhi not to console Tehran but to study it, seeking to understand how a nation absorbed a superpower's assault and emerged defiant.
- The Strait of Hormuz blockade is fracturing the coalition from within: Indian restaurants are closing for lack of gas, Indonesian and Egyptian economies are bleeding, while Russia quietly profits from soaring petroleum prices.
- The UAE's position inside BRICS has become untenable — Netanyahu's reported flight to Abu Dhabi during the Iran assault, corroborated by Israel's own military chief, has exposed a depth of alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv that no denial can fully obscure.
- Russia's Lavrov reframed the entire crisis as a resource war, drawing a direct line from Venezuela to Iran and arguing that Washington created the Hormuz impasse through its own military choices — then had the audacity to ask Beijing to clean it up.
- The US appeal to China to pressure Iran into reopening shipping lanes has become the summit's most damning detail, a confession of diplomatic exhaustion from a power that started a conflict it cannot finish on its own terms.
On May 15th, foreign ministers from across the BRICS coalition convened in New Delhi to confront the cascading consequences of a recent American military strike on Iran — and found themselves doing something few had anticipated: reassessing Iran's place in the world. Iran attended as an observer, but its presence shaped everything. What delegates encountered was not a broken state but a defiant one, and the shift in perception was palpable.
The immediate pressure point was the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's closure of the waterway in response to the US attack had sent shockwaves through the global economy, but the pain was distributed unevenly. India, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia were suffering — energy prices surging, fuel shortages spreading, supply chains seizing. Russia, by contrast, was prospering as oil prices climbed. Brazil had cushioned itself through ethanol reliance, and China had drawn on vast reserves and its electric vehicle infrastructure. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, also BRICS members, faced severe GDP losses they could not escape.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi used the moment to reframe his country's standing. He told Iranian wire services that delegates now viewed the Islamic Republic as a credible regional power — one that had absorbed an American assault and remained standing. They wanted to understand how. The conversation had moved from skepticism to something closer to respect.
The summit also surfaced deep tensions within BRICS itself. Araghchi clashed with the UAE over Iranian strikes on what Tehran described as military targets inside the Emirates. The dispute sharpened when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly flew to Abu Dhabi during the assault on Iran — a disclosure corroborated by Israel's military chief of staff, even as Abu Dhabi denied it. The revelation left the UAE's stated neutrality in tatters and its position within BRICS increasingly contradictory.
India's Jaishankar pressed for practical solutions, calling for the restoration of free maritime passage through Hormuz and the Red Sea. Russia's Lavrov offered a blunter reading: the American attack on Iran, he argued, was never about security — it was about oil, just as Washington's long campaign against Venezuela had been. The blockade, he noted, was a consequence of the US assault, not its cause. His sharpest observation was reserved for Washington's appeal to Beijing to pressure Iran into reopening the strait. The United States, he suggested, had started a war it could not end and was now asking China to solve a problem of its own making.
What the New Delhi summit produced was less a resolution than a portrait — of a coalition straining under unequal burdens, of a regional power newly legible to the world, and of an American foreign policy that had generated a crisis it lacked the tools, or the partners, to resolve alone.
In New Delhi on May 15th, foreign ministers from the world's largest developing economies gathered to discuss a region in crisis—and found themselves reassessing Iran's place in it. The BRICS bloc, a sprawling coalition that now includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, convened as the fallout from a recent American military strike on Iran continued to reshape the geopolitical landscape. Iran attended as an observer, but its presence dominated the conversation in ways that revealed a fundamental shift in how major non-Western powers view Tehran.
The immediate crisis binding the discussion was the Strait of Hormuz. In response to the American attack, Iran had effectively closed one of the world's most critical shipping lanes, and the consequences were rippling unevenly across the BRICS membership. India, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia were bleeding economically—energy prices spiking, gasoline shortages mounting, restaurants in Indian cities closing because liquefied natural gas from Qatar had dried up. Russia, by contrast, was thriving as petroleum prices climbed. Brazil had insulated itself through its reliance on ethanol fuel. China had weathered the disruption with massive oil reserves and the world's largest electric vehicle fleet. But Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both BRICS members, were suffering catastrophic GDP losses from the blockade they could not escape.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi seized the moment to reframe his country's position. Speaking to Iranian wire services, he described a palpable shift in how BRICS delegates now regarded the Islamic Republic. What had changed, he suggested, was the evidence of Iranian capability. The country had absorbed an American military assault and remained standing—not merely intact but defiant. Araghchi told his audience that BRICS members now saw Iran as "a power and actor in the region; an actor who has the ability to confront the greatest powers." Delegates wanted to understand how Iran had withstood the onslaught. They wanted to learn from Iranian tactics. The calculus had moved from skepticism to respect.
But the summit also exposed fractures within BRICS itself. Araghchi had sharp words for the UAE, a fellow member whose close alignment with Israel and the United States had become impossible to ignore. When Iran had struck back at American and Israeli targets in the Emirates, Abu Dhabi had protested that neutral civilian infrastructure had been hit. Araghchi dismissed the complaint, insisting Iran had targeted only military facilities and personnel directly involved in the war effort. The tension deepened when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed he had flown to the UAE during the assault on Iran—a disclosure that underlined the depth of the Israeli-Emirati partnership and contradicted the UAE's stated neutrality. Though Abu Dhabi's office denied the claim, the Israeli military's chief of staff corroborated it, leaving the UAE's position within BRICS increasingly awkward.
India's foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, tried to steer the conversation toward practical solutions, emphasizing that "safe and unimpeded maritime flows through international waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, remain vital for global economic well-being." But Russia's Sergey Lavrov offered a different diagnosis of the crisis. He argued that the American attack on Iran had never been about terrorism or regional stability—it was about oil. He drew a parallel to Venezuela, where Washington had long pursued regime change while claiming to target drug trafficking, when the real prize was petroleum reserves. Iran, he suggested, was no different. The blockade itself, Lavrov pointed out, was not Iran's doing. Until the American and Israeli assault on February 28th, the Strait of Hormuz had remained open to global shipping. It was Washington's own military action that had created the impasse.
Lavrov's most cutting observation concerned American diplomatic desperation. The Trump administration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were now pressuring China to strong-arm Iran into reopening the strait—a request that struck Lavrov as absurd. "What does the People's Republic of China have to do with this?" he asked. The United States, he suggested, had started a conflict it could not finish and was now asking Beijing to solve a problem of Washington's own creation. The message was clear: American power had limits, and those limits were now visible to the world.
What emerged from the New Delhi summit was a portrait of a global order in transition. Iran, once isolated and under siege, had demonstrated a capacity to resist that elevated its standing among nations skeptical of American hegemony. The blockade of Hormuz, meanwhile, had become a test of BRICS cohesion—revealing which members could absorb the economic pain and which could not, and exposing the contradictions within a coalition that included both Iran and the UAE. For most BRICS nations, the crisis was deeply inconvenient. For Russia, it was profitable. And for the United States, it was a reminder that military action alone could not dictate outcomes in a multipolar world.
Notable Quotes
BRICS countries now view Iran as having established itself as a regional power with the ability to confront the greatest powers— Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
The U.S. started this conflict, reached a dead end, and now needs China to solve a problem of its own making— Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, paraphrased
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Iran's military performance matter so much to BRICS countries that have nothing to do with the conflict?
Because it changes the calculation about what's possible. If Iran can absorb an American strike and keep functioning, then smaller or weaker nations start to believe they have more room to maneuver. It's not about ideology—it's about the credibility of resistance.
But the blockade is hurting most of them. Doesn't that undermine Iran's standing?
It does and it doesn't. Yes, India and South Africa are suffering. But Lavrov's point is that Washington created this situation, not Iran. The blockade is a consequence of American action, not Iranian aggression. That distinction matters politically.
What about the UAE's position? It seems caught between two worlds.
Exactly. It's a BRICS member but also deeply aligned with Israel and the US. When Netanyahu revealed he'd visited during the war, it exposed that contradiction. The UAE can't claim neutrality anymore, and that's humiliating in a room full of countries watching to see who really has agency.
Is Lavrov right that this is really about oil?
He's identifying the pattern. The US justifies military action in moral or security terms, but the economic interests are always there. Whether that's the whole story or just part of it, the fact that Russia can say it out loud in a BRICS summit—and not be dismissed—shows how the conversation has shifted.
What happens next? Does the strait stay closed?
That's the question everyone in that room was wrestling with. The US wants China to pressure Iran. But China has no leverage, and asking it to intervene just highlights American weakness. The blockade persists until someone finds a political off-ramp, and right now, there isn't one.