New Delhi: The BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi ended on Friday (May 5) without adopting a common declaration, reflecting the deep divisions within the bloc over the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran and its wider regional fallout.Instead of a negotiated joint statement, India as chair issued a “Chair’s Statement and Outcome Document”, an unusual outcome that reflected the inability of members to bridge disagreements.The divisions surfaced in three distinct ways across the 63-paragraph document, demonstrating the increasingly complex internal dynamics within BRICS following its expansion in 2024 to include rival powers such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates.The most consequential split centred on the Iran war itself – and who should be condemned for the conflict. The UAE had wanted Iran to be explicitly condemned, while Tehran wanted Israel and the US to be named for starting the war.That disagreement prevented consensus on a joint declaration altogether and was reflected in paragraph 21 of the outcome document, which unusually acknowledged internal differences within BRICS.“There were differing views among some members as regard to the situation in the West Asia/Middle East region,” the paragraph stated. BRICS members “expressed their respective national positions and shared a range of perspectives,” it added, listing only broad principles that were presented by the member states, including dialogue and diplomacy, respect for sovereignty, unimpeded maritime commerce and the protection of civilian infrastructure and lives.The paragraph did not name the US, Israel or Iran, nor assign responsibility for the military confrontation. Neither was there any direct reference to the current situation at the Strait of Hormuz, despite the waterway’s importance to global energy flows and India’s energy security.Under India’s chairship, which began in January 2026, BRICS has not issued a single consensus statement on the 40-day conflict in West Asia that followed the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. A BRICS deputy foreign ministers’ meeting on West Asia held in New Delhi on April 24 had also failed to produce a joint communique after clashes between Iran and the UAE.Reservations over Palestine and YemenThe New Delhi document contained two additional fault lines linked to Palestine and Yemen. Two paragraphs carried footnotes recording reservations from “a member”, though the country was not identified.One paragraph stated that Gaza was “an inseparable part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and stressed the “importance of unifying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the Palestinian Authority”. It also urged the international community to support the Palestinian Authority “in undergoing reforms” to fulfil Palestinian aspirations for statehood.Sources said Iran was the unnamed member that registered the reservation, although Tehran did not publicly specify its objection. The Wire has contacted the Iran embassy for a response.A direct comparison with earlier BRICS documents, however, reveals that the language in the 2026 paragraph is not new. The same formulation appeared in the Rio leaders’ summit declaration of July 2025, which stated that “the Gaza Strip is an inseparable part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and underlined “the importance of unifying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the Palestinian Authority.” That paragraph was adopted without any footnoted reservation from any member.Asked whether the language on Palestine represented a shift in India’s position, MEA secretary (economic relations) Sudhakar Dalela said he did “not see this as a departure”. Photo: AP/PTI.The April 2025 Rio foreign ministers’ chair statement, by contrast, had not contained this language. Its equivalent paragraph spoke only of supporting the Palestinian Authority “in undergoing reforms” and the “expeditious reconstruction” of civil infrastructure.Iran’s alleged decision to register a reservation now, on language it had apparently accepted at the leaders’ level less than a year ago, raises questions about what changed. Bringing Gaza under PA control would mean the displacement of Hamas, which has governed the territory since 2007 and of which Iran is a key backer. But Iran did not object to this formulation in Rio. The reservation may therefore reflect the broader collapse of consensus on West Asia following the February 28 strikes, with Iran less willing to make concessions on any part of the document while the bloc cannot agree on the war itself.On Palestine more broadly, the 2026 outcome document largely reproduced the language of the July 2025 Rio leaders’ summit declaration rather than introducing new formulations. The two-state solution within the 1967 borders “with East Jerusalem as its capital”, the call for “the State of Palestine’s full membership in the UN”, the “immediate, permanent and unconditional ceasefire” in Gaza, and the condemnation of “the use of starvation as a method of warfare” all appeared in the leaders’ summit.The April 2025 Rio foreign ministers’ statement had been weaker on each of these points. It had called for a “permanent cessation of hostilities” without the word “unconditional”, had not mentioned starvation as a method of warfare, and had not included a call for Palestine’s full UN membership. The leaders’ summit strengthened the language significantly, and the 2026 FMM carried that language forward.However, the New Delhi document dropped several formulations that had appeared in both the Rio FMM and the Rio leaders’ summit. It did not include the explicit opposition to “forced displacement, temporary or permanent, under any pretext” of the Palestinian population, language present in both the 2025 FMM and the leaders’ summit. It also omitted the condemnation of settlement expansion in the West Bank and the assertion that “international law and international judicial bodies demand the end of the illegal occupation”, both of which were in the earlier documents.Asked whether the Palestine language represented a shift in India’s position, MEA secretary (economic relations) Sudhakar Dalela said he did “not see this as a departure.” He said BRICS had a “very coherent and clear view on matters relating to Palestine” across previous declarations.A separate paragraph on the Red Sea and Bab al Mandab Strait stressing navigational rights and urging diplomatic efforts to address the Yemen conflict also drew a reservation.Sources again identified Iran as the unnamed objector.The wording touched on highly sensitive issues linked to Red Sea security, the Yemen conflict and the activities of the Iran-aligned Houthis. Since the Gaza war began in 2023, Houthi attacks and threats against commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Bab al Mandab Strait have repeatedly disrupted trade routes. During the current confrontation involving Iran, the Houthis have expressed support for Tehran, while maritime security has remained closely tied to wider regional tensions involving Iran, the US and Israel.On the footnoted paragraphs, Dalela told reporters that these were “specific to a region” in which “one of the members from the region had a differing perspective on few elements.”He said India would “continue to engage on these matters and make sure that we can find common grounds on these one and one and a half issue that we have remaining”.The Iran-UAE confrontation had already played out openly on the first day of the meeting at Bharat Mandapam.Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the UAE of direct involvement in the military campaign against Iran, saying Abu Dhabi had provided military bases, airspace and facilities to the US and Israel.UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Khalifa Shaheen Al Marar reportedly criticised Tehran for its attacks on neighbouring countries and portrayed Iran as the aggressor.In his opening remarks, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had alluded to the tensions without naming any country. “It is essential for the smooth advancement of BRICS that newer members fully appreciate and subscribe to BRICS’ consensus on various important issues,” he said.Both Iran and the UAE joined BRICS in 2024. The New Delhi meeting was widely seen as the bloc’s first major geopolitical stress test after expansion brought rival West Asian powers into the grouping.Iran blames UAE for blocking consensusAraghchi later openly blamed the UAE for blocking consensus during a press conference at the Iranian embassy in New Delhi.“The final statement by the BRICS ministerial meeting was blocked, or some parts of that was blocked, by a member state which has its own special relations with Israel, and this is very, very unfortunate,” he said. The UAE signed the Abraham accords and formally recognised Israel in 2020. Iran has repeatedly alleged that Gulf states hosting American military infrastructure facilitated operations against it during the conflict. Araghchi said Iran had “no difficulty with that certain country” and that Iranian strikes had targeted only “American military bases and American military installations, which are unfortunately in their soil.”The sole reason the UAE blocked the statement, he said, was “their support to Israel and the United States in their aggression against Iran.”Araghchi openly blamed the UAE for blocking consensus. Photo: PTI/Kamal Kishore.Asked specifically which member had objected to the paragraph on Palestine, Araghchi avoided directly naming the UAE but strongly hinted at it.“We have to ask the president of this meeting to answer that question. I’m not in charge to answer those questions,” he said. “But I think everybody knows that each country blocked anything against Israel.”He added that the same country had “provided the US and Israeli forces with their airspace, with their territories, with their military bases.”Araghchi hoped that by the time of the BRICS leaders’ summit later this year, the UAE should “come to a good understanding that Iran is a neighbour”. “We have to live with each other. We have lived for centuries and we have to live for centuries to come,” he added.The BRICS meeting concluded on the same day that Prime Minister Modi flew to Abu Dhabi to meet UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Modi condemned the attacks on the UAE during his visit, without naming Iran, saying “the manner in which the UAE has been targeted is not acceptable in any form” and that India was “ready to extend all possible support to bring peace in West Asia.” The two sides signed agreements on a strategic defence partnership, LPG supply and strategic petroleum reserves.When asked for comment on India’s close ties with UAE, the Iranian foreign minister predictably dodged, stating that it was up to India to decide its relations.“What matters for us is good relations which exist between us and India. And as I said, it is rooted in history and it is rooted in old political, economic, and cultural relations we have always had. And we are determined to continue our good relations with India,” said Araghchi.Shifts on other political issuesBeyond the Iran war and Palestine issue, the 2026 outcome document showed several other notable shifts from last year.On Syria, the 2025 Rio statement had condemned the widespread violence in Latakia and Tartus provinces since 6 March 2025, including the mass killings of civilians from the Alawite community, as well as terrorist activities by ISIL and al-Qaeda affiliates. The 2026 document, reflecting the changed situation a year later, instead encouraged “post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation” of Syria, urged protection of minority rights, and called for the “withdrawal of occupying forces from Syria”.The Ukraine war, which had dedicated paragraphs in both the 2025 Rio FMM and the leaders’ summit noting members’ “national positions” and welcoming proposals such as the African Peace Initiative and the Group of Friends for Peace, was not mentioned in the 2026 document at all.The 2026 document carried a new paragraph on Cuba, expressing concern over its situation and calling for the lifting of “economic, commercial and financial measures” against the country in accordance with a UN General Assembly resolution. While Cuba was welcomed as a BRICS partner country in January 2025, no previous BRICS foreign ministers’ or leaders’ statements had addressed the situation in Cuba as a standalone political issue. The paragraph described Latin America and the Caribbean as a “zone of peace, built on mutual respect, peaceful settlement of disputes and non-intervention”.A new paragraph welcomed UNGA resolution 80/250 that declared the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as “the gravest crime against humanity”, and advocated the implementation of UNGA Resolution 79/115 of December 2024 to eradicate colonialism “in all its forms and manifestations”.On UN Security Council reform, the 2025 Rio paragraph had carried a footnoted objection from Egypt and Ethiopia. As per sources, Egypt and Ethiopia had not wanted South Africa to be also named explicitly as UNSC candidate, so it was dropped with explicit endorsement of Brazil and India alone. The 2026 paragraph carried largely similar language, including support for African aspirations as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration, but drew no objection this time.The 2026 document also dropped Haiti, which the 2025 statement had addressed in a dedicated paragraph expressing concern over its deteriorating security, humanitarian, political and economic situation.On climate-linked trade barriers, both the 2025 Rio FMM and the leaders’ summit had explicitly rejected “unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs)” by name. The 2026 document used more general language, referring to “protectionism under the guise of environmental objectives” without naming the European Union’s CBAM mechanism, though paragraph 42 of the document criticised “the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which distort trade”.While West Asia had dominated the political disagreements, the meeting saw far greater convergence on economic issues, particularly sanctions, tariffs and trade restrictions.The outcome document condemned “unilateral coercive measures” including economic and secondary sanctions not authorised by the UN Security Council and warned that such measures harmed development, food security and global supply chains.In BRICS diplomacy, the phrase generally refers to Western sanctions regimes led by the United States, particularly those targeting countries such as Iran and Russia, as well as secondary sanctions that penalise third countries or companies for dealing with sanctioned states.The ministers also expressed “serious concerns” over “the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with WTO rules.”The language reflected broader concerns among BRICS members over renewed tariff wars, export controls and protectionist policies, including US tariff measures and technology restrictions on China, which developing countries argue are fragmenting global trade.The 2026 document went further than previous BRICS statements by more explicitly linking tariffs, sanctions and protectionism to supply chain disruptions, economic fragmentation and widening inequality between developed and developing countries.At the MEA briefing, Dalela said ministers had discussed “concerns regarding unilateral measures and their disproportionate impact on developing countries.”He said the discussions were guided by BRICS’ commitment to “a rule-based non-discriminatory transparent and inclusive multilateral trading system with WTO at its core.”This article is edited with updated information and republished at 11.20 am on the same day.