BRICS: Why no military support for Iran?

While the Israeli strikes target the Iranian sensitive sites and Tehran responds with missiles on Tel Aviv, military climbing redefines balances in the Middle East. However, a strategic absence intrigues: that of the BRICS. New arrival in the block, Iran was betting on solid support against its sworn enemy. But neither Moscow, Neither Beijing, Nor New Delhi are committed. This silence explodes the limits of an alliance that Tehran saw as a counterweight to Western hegemony.

Diplomatic support without military scope

While the spectrum of a total war is confirmed, Russia, however considered the strategic partner most committed to Iran, rejected any idea of ​​military intervention in the current conflict.

In a press release published by the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin certainly has expressed its “Condemnation of Israeli actions, carried out in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law”and presented his “Condolences to the Iranian people for the many victims”.

He spoke by phone with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for de -escalation. However, this posture was quickly accompanied by a clarification. Despite the recent signature of a “Strategic partnership treaty”Russia does not intend to bring any military support to Tehran.

This treaty, signed in January 2025 and ratified in the spring, contains no mutual defense clause. It is limited to the commitment not to support enemies of the other party.

The reasons for this prudence are multiple and anchored in the diplomatic strategy of Moscow. To date, Russia is limited to a posture of geopolitical balancingist, to preserve both its regional interests and its room for maneuver in front of the West. Concretely:

• The Russian-Iranian treaty is not a military pact and does not provide any assistance clause in the event of assault;
• Moscow remains mobilized by the war in Ukraine and avoids opening a second front, especially against Israel, military and nuclear power;
• The Kremlin seeks to maintain a dialogue with Washington, in particular through its role as potential mediator in this conflict;
• Vladimir Putin has repeatedly proposed to facilitate a return to the negotiation table, an option that Donald Trump publicly praised.

In short, behind diplomatic language and verbal condemnations, Russia refuses to translate its strategic partnership with Iran into concrete military commitment. This tactical positioning aims to contain climbing, but a de facto teheran in a position of vulnerability against Israel.

The BRICS in the test of their geopolitical contradictions

If Tehran could hope for collective support from the BRICS Alliance, expectations have come up against reality. On June 16, the spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baqaei, declared ::

We hope that the BRICS will adopt a position, recognizing reality in our region, where a criminal regime has launched an illegal armed attack on another country.

However, if the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (OCS) condemned the Israeli strikes, the BRICS, they have not published any unified declaration. The deep divergences between the members slow down any concerted reaction behind the scenes.

Indeed, China, although close to Iran on the energy level, does not wish to get involved in a conflict that could disturb its global trade. For its part, India is held at a distance from any hostility towards Israel, with whom it maintains close security cooperation.

This diplomatic silence illustrates a structural reality: the BRICS does not constitute a security alliance. Thus, unlike NATO, the group has neither a common military doctrine nor coordinated intervention mechanisms.

Each state defends its own national, often contradictory interests, especially in matters of foreign policy. Iran, by joining the group last January, counted on ideological solidarity in front of the West. However, reality is more pragmatic. At this stage, none of the heavyweights of the block seem ready to compromise its bilateral relations with Israel or the United States to defend Tehran.

This lack of reaction raises the question of the political credibility of the BRICS. If there remains a powerful forum of contesting the Western model, especially in economic matters as evidenced by the massive disengagement of US assets, its inability to act in a major crisis situation could ultimately limit its strategic scope. For Iran, isolation is brutal. He undergoes a major military offensive, but he also finds himself without a solid diplomatic lever to mobilize his allies. Unless a change in posture, unlikely, Tehran will have to face climbing alone.