After the 12-day war of Israel against Iran, BRICS clearly condemned the attack on Iran in last year's meeting. However, in this year's meeting, this large economic coalition decided to limit itself to a request for "maximum restraint" in the Middle East and refrained from blaming any specific country. This change in approach has raised many questions about its reasons and potential consequences.
Why Did BRICS Remain Silent?
This meaningful silence of BRICS seems to be related to political and economic reasons. The member countries of this coalition, especially China and India, are looking to maintain their trade and economic relations with Israel and the United States. Meanwhile, Iran is considered an important market and also a source of energy for these countries. Therefore, maintaining balance in their international relations may have led to BRICS's silence in the face of Israel's attacks.
Consequences of This Change in Approach
BRICS's silence in response to Israel's attacks may also signify a change in crisis response strategies. This coalition may be seeking to create a new diplomatic space in the Middle East where military attacks are regarded as an inappropriate tool. But can this approach help reduce tensions, or conversely, will it lead to exacerbating crises?
Ultimately, the question remains whether BRICS, as a global entity, has the necessary capability and will to decisively address regional crises. Given its current approach, it seems that this coalition is more focused on preserving the economic interests of its member countries than on resolving regional crises and tensions.
