As India hosts the two day BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in New Delhi on May 14 and 15, the gathering arrives at one of the most volatile geopolitical moments in recent years. What was initially expected to focus on economic cooperation, global governance reform, and institutional coordination inside the expanded BRICS framework has now been overshadowed by the rapidly escalating crisis in West Asia and the growing fears surrounding global energy security.
The timing of the meeting itself reflects the shifting balance of global politics. While BRICS was once viewed primarily as an economic bloc challenging Western financial dominance, the grouping is increasingly transforming into a strategic political platform where emerging powers coordinate responses to wars, sanctions, energy disruptions, and the restructuring of the international order.
This year’s meeting is taking place under India’s presidency theme of “Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability,” language that sounds diplomatic on paper but now carries immediate geopolitical urgency. Behind those themes lies a much larger concern shared across almost all BRICS capitals: how to protect economic stability and national interests in a world increasingly shaped by sanctions, regional wars, disrupted trade routes, and strategic fragmentation.
The Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that foreign ministers and heads of delegation from both BRICS member and partner countries are participating in the conclave and will also meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar is chairing the discussions, which are expected to focus heavily on global governance reforms, multilateral restructuring, and the rapidly deteriorating situation in West Asia.
But despite the formal agenda, everyone understands what the real issue is.
The Israel–Iran conflict and its direct impact on global oil and LNG flows now dominate the strategic calculations of nearly every BRICS member state. Iran’s move to effectively disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets. Roughly one fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments pass through that narrow maritime corridor between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Even the perception of prolonged instability there immediately translates into higher shipping costs, insurance premiums, energy inflation, and fears of broader economic slowdown.
For countries like India and China, both heavily dependent on imported energy, the implications are enormous. For Russia and Iran, the crisis carries strategic dimensions linked to sanctions, geopolitical leverage, and regional deterrence. For Gulf members like the United Arab Emirates, the situation is even more sensitive because the conflict directly affects national infrastructure, investor confidence, and maritime security.
That is precisely why achieving a consensus statement inside BRICS has become far more difficult than many initially expected.
Last month’s meeting involving BRICS deputy foreign ministers and special envoys dealing with West Asia reportedly failed to produce a unified position on the Iran conflict. The central obstacle was not simply disagreement over Israel or the United States. The deeper divide emerged between Iran and the UAE itself.
The two countries have recently exchanged accusations regarding attacks on energy infrastructure inside the Emirates, creating tensions within the expanded BRICS framework. That dispute exposed one of the fundamental contradictions of BRICS expansion. The bloc now includes regional rivals, competing energy powers, and states with sharply different security alignments.
This is the new reality of BRICS after expansion.
Originally built around Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the grouping expanded dramatically in 2024 with the addition of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE, while Indonesia formally joined in 2025. The enlarged structure now represents nearly half of the global population, around 40 percent of global GDP, and approximately a quarter of global trade flows.
On paper, that scale gives BRICS enormous geopolitical weight.
But expansion also imported regional rivalries directly into the organisation. Iran and the UAE do not share the same strategic priorities. Egypt and Ethiopia remain divided over the Nile and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. India and China continue facing unresolved border tensions. Saudi Arabia remains outside full membership while maintaining close strategic coordination with several BRICS states. Russia views the bloc through the lens of sanctions resistance and multipolarity, while India continues balancing between strategic autonomy and Western partnerships.
This makes consensus increasingly difficult, especially during active geopolitical crises.
At the same time, the current West Asia conflict has also strengthened the strategic relevance of BRICS itself. Many member states increasingly believe existing Western-led institutions are either unable or unwilling to stabilise major conflicts without becoming directly involved in them politically or militarily.
Iran has already urged India, as the current BRICS chair, to use its “independent role” to help halt US-Israel hostilities. That appeal reflects Tehran’s broader strategy of relying on non-Western diplomatic platforms to counter international isolation and pressure.
India now finds itself in a delicate position.
New Delhi has carefully maintained relations across competing blocs for years. It has strong ties with Israel, deep energy and connectivity interests with the Gulf states, long-standing strategic relations with Iran, expanding partnerships with the United States, and active participation in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
That balancing act is becoming harder as the regional environment deteriorates.
The absence of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi from the meeting also adds another geopolitical layer. Beijing confirmed that Wang Yi would remain in China due to US President Donald Trump’s three day state visit to Beijing happening simultaneously. Instead, Chinese Ambassador Xu Feihong is representing Beijing at the gathering.
That overlap is strategically significant.
While BRICS ministers discuss multipolarity, energy security, and reform of global governance in New Delhi, Washington and Beijing are simultaneously engaged in their own high-level negotiations involving tariffs, Iran, Taiwan, technological competition, and the future balance of global power.
In many ways, the two events reflect the same global transition from different directions.
One side represents the old power structure attempting to manage strategic competition. The other represents emerging powers trying to build alternative mechanisms within a fragmenting international system.
For India, this moment carries both opportunity and risk.
India’s presidency gives New Delhi the ability to shape the tone of BRICS at a time when the grouping is gaining greater international attention. Discussions around local currency trade, alternative payment systems, supply chain resilience, energy security coordination, and reform of institutions like the UN Security Council and IMF increasingly resonate with many developing nations frustrated with the current global order.
But India also understands that BRICS cannot function effectively if internal geopolitical contradictions continue escalating.
That is why the New Delhi meeting may ultimately focus less on grand ideological declarations and more on crisis management, strategic coordination, and preventing fragmentation within the bloc itself.
The reality is that BRICS no longer operates in the relatively stable global environment that existed when the grouping first emerged. The world is now shaped by sanctions wars, maritime insecurity, technological fragmentation, proxy conflicts, energy disruptions, and competing financial systems.
Under those conditions, energy security becomes more than an economic issue. It becomes the foundation of geopolitical stability itself.
And that is why the discussions in New Delhi matter far beyond BRICS alone.