Editorial

As leaders gather in New Delhi for the 18th BRICS Summit, negotiators have spent long hours racing against the clock to finalise the Delhi Declaration. By most accounts, consensus has been reached on nearly the entire text. The sole sticking point remains a single, highly charged paragraph addressing the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, including references to Iranian attacks on installations in the United Arab Emirates and other West Asian countries. This unresolved clause reveals both the ambition and the structural limits of an expanded BRICS.

The difficulty is unsurprising. BRICS now includes Iran as a full member alongside countries with deep economic and security ties to the Gulf states and the West. Russia and China have taken positions critical of Western military actions, while India has consistently called for dialogue and diplomacy to end the West Asia conflict. For New Delhi, as host and current chair, the challenge is acute: how to produce a document that reflects solidarity among emerging economies without forcing member states into binary geopolitical camps.

A declaration that papers over differences risks becoming anodyne and irrelevant. One that adopts maximalist language on the Iran conflict could alienate partners who view the situation through the lens of energy security, maritime stability, and regional escalation. The fact that negotiators have narrowed disagreement to a single paragraph suggests serious effort and goodwill. Yet the persistence of that disagreement underlines a deeper truth: BRICS is not a military alliance or an ideological bloc. It is a diverse coalition of countries with overlapping economic interests and diverging strategic priorities. India’s approach has been pragmatic. Rather than allowing the declaration to become a platform for confrontation, New Delhi has sought to keep the focus on practical cooperation—trade, technology, sustainable development, and reform of global institutions. This reflects a broader Indian preference for multi-alignment over alignment. In a world of competing great-power narratives, the ability to convene without demanding uniformity is itself a form of influence.

Whether the remaining paragraph is resolved through careful drafting, footnotes, or omission will test the grouping’s maturity. Consensus, if achieved, would demonstrate that BRICS can manage internal tensions without paralysis. Failure to close the gap would not collapse the summit, but it would highlight the difficulty of translating numerical weight—BRICS now represents a large share of global population and GDP—into coherent political voice.

The Delhi Declaration will ultimately be judged less by its rhetoric on any single conflict and more by whether it advances concrete cooperation among members. In that sense, the late-night negotiations are less a crisis than a necessary reckoning with the realities of a multipolar world.

The capture of Perim Island, also known as Mayyun, by Iran-backed Houthi forces marks a dangerous escalation in the Red Sea. Combined with advances along the Yemeni coast near the port of Mokha, the group now holds commanding positions over the Bab al-Mandab Strait—one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Government forces withdrew, allowing the Houthis to consolidate control over territory that overlooks the narrow passage linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. The implications extend far beyond Yemen’s civil war.

Bab al-Mandab is no ordinary waterway. Roughly 20 nautical miles wide at its narrowest, it serves as the southern gateway for ships transiting the Suez Canal between Europe and Asia. A significant share of global container traffic and energy shipments passes through this corridor. By seizing Perim Island and adjacent coastal areas, the Houthis have gained the ability to monitor, interdict, or threaten commercial vessels with greater precision. Previous attacks on shipping had already forced costly rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope. This territorial gain raises the risk of more sustained disruption.

The economic consequences are immediate and measurable. Insurance premiums for vessels operating in the region have risen sharply. Shipping delays lengthen supply chains. Oil and gas markets, already sensitive to Middle East instability, face renewed pressure. Saudi Arabia’s decision to shut down a major cross-country oil pipeline following drone attacks linked to the broader conflict underscores how quickly regional fighting can translate into global energy insecurity. Higher freight costs and fuel prices will eventually filter through to consumers worldwide.

Geopolitically, the seizure strengthens the Houthis’ leverage and, by extension, Iran’s influence along a vital artery of international commerce. It complicates efforts by regional states and external powers to restore freedom of navigation. Naval coalitions have sought to deter attacks, yet territorial control on land and islands presents a different challenge from hit-and-run operations at sea. The withdrawal of Yemeni government forces also highlights the fragility of the anti-Houthi coalition after years of conflict.

This development does not occur in isolation. It forms part of a wider pattern of instability stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea, where multiple flashpoints threaten the free flow of trade. For an interconnected global economy dependent on predictable maritime routes, the loss of secure passage through Bab al-Mandab is more than a regional setback. It is a systemic risk.

Restoring stability will require more than military deterrence. It demands sustained diplomatic pressure, coordinated maritime security efforts, and a realistic approach to the underlying drivers of the Yemen conflict. Until then, one of the world’s most important shipping lanes remains under heightened threat—and the costs will be borne far beyond the shores of the Red Sea.

• SAS Kirmani