BRICS condemns attack on Iran and defends diplomacy

In a statement released on Tuesday (24), the countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia) expressed “profound concern” with military attacks on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, started on June 13. The text denounces bombings as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, as well as alerting to the risks of even more severe escalation in the Middle East, with direct impacts on global economy and international security.

The block also specifically condemns possible attacks on nuclear facilities for peaceful use, classifying them as an inadmissible threat to civil and environmental integrity. In reaffirming his support for diplomatic channels and dialogue as the only legitimate way of conflict resolution, the BRICS declaration reinforces a moderating tone and opposes the logic of armed retaliation.

Free zone of nuclear weapons and respect for humanitarian law

One of the central points of the document is the defense of the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone and mass destruction in the Middle East – ancient proposal, but historically blocked by Israel, the only unlavoded nuclear power in the region. BRICS resumes this claim as a way to ensure long -term stability, emphasizing the urgency of disarmament and non -proliferation.

The statement also brings direct appeal to the protection of civil lives and humanitarian infrastructure, principles of humanitarian international law often neglected in the conflicts of the region. “Civil lives must be protected”, reinforces the text, which still provides solidarity with the victims and their families.

Silence and ambiguity of the USA European Union Alliance

The tone of BRICS’s joint statement contrasts strongly with the position – or its absence – of the main Western allies. The United States, which maintain strategic military presence around Iran, have adopted an ambiguous stance, avoiding explicit convictions to bombing and, in some cases, justifying actions such as “preventive” or “defensive”. The European Union, in turn, is limited to generic appeals for “containment” and “climbing avoidance”, without directly referenced to the attack on the Iranian territory.

This difference in approach reveals the growing split between two geopolitical poles: on the one hand, the Euro-Atlantic alliance, whose defense discourse of the international order is often selective; On the other hand, the BRICS, which seeks to affirm a multipolar order based on sovereignty, diplomacy and non-intervention.

Multipolarity and dispute for international legitimacy

By issuing a clear declaration with clear diplomatic language, based on international law and addressed to the “international community”, BRICS signals not only its concern for regional stability, but also its willingness to present itself as a legitimate mediator in global crises. The presence of countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the bloc expands the symbolic reach of the statement, while reinforcing the perception that the US -led order no longer has the monopoly of international narrative.

By drawing attention to the risks of military climbing and proposing solutions based on diplomacy, BRICS projects itself as an alternative to the “shock and dread” policy that marked Western action in recent decades in the Middle East.

Brazil and the construction role of the BRICS presidency

Under the rotary presidency of Brazil in 2025, BRICS has sought to reinforce its diplomatic relevance, and the joint note reflects this effort. Itamaraty, while avoiding adopting belligerent terms, endorses the principles of non -aggression, sovereignty and multilateralism – central elements in Brazilian diplomacy since redemocratization.

With this statement, BRICS reaffirms its commitment to building a less asymmetrical international order and more regulated by law, at a time when the militarization of international disputes again threatens global peace. Amid this scenario, the tone difference between the two blocks becomes increasingly visible-and politically relevant.