18APR

Araghchi denies Hormuz obstruction at BRICS Delhi

3 min read

14:57UTC

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told BRICS foreign ministers in New Delhi on 14 May that Iran has not created any obstacles in the Strait of Hormuz, one day after Iran's Supreme National Security Council finalised a formal Hormuz security plan.

← Back to Hormuz opens and closes in 24 hours Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Araghchi denied Hormuz obstruction at BRICS the day after Iran's SNSC finalised a formal control architecture for the strait.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran's Foreign Minister, arrived in New Delhi on 14 May having announced his attendance at the BRICS (the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa grouping, a multilateral forum for non-Western powers) foreign ministers meeting the previous day . In his address, he told the assembled ministers that Iran "has not created any obstacles in the strait of Hormuz" ¹. The claim was structured for a non-Western audience and delivered one day after Iran's Supreme National Security Council finalised a formal Hormuz security plan that operationalises the transit toll and corridor regime.

Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani, accompanying Araghchi in Delhi, called on BRICS states to act "against US aggression." South China Morning Post reported Iran's anti-American rhetoric was testing India's balancing posture ². India is the largest non-Chinese user of Iranian-routed crude, with domestic political constraints that make open endorsement of Araghchi's framing costly; Delhi is expected to prioritise de-escalation language over bloc confrontation in the final communique.

The Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), established on 5 May, requires vessels to register, pay a transit toll in Chinese yuan, and adhere to a designated corridor . Tehran frames those requirements as regulatory, not obstructive; Araghchi's Delhi statement carries that framing to a non-Western audience that has not signed up to Washington's counter-position. The denial is designed to hold simultaneously with the operational architecture. Iran had also declared no US weapons may transit Hormuz into regional bases, announced the same day as Araghchi's denial, adding a new operational constraint while the Foreign Minister described a strait without obstacles.

The BRICS stage gives Tehran a non-Western readership that is both sympathetic and practically important. Whether the BRICS communique adopts Araghchi's "no obstacles" framing or remains neutral on the transit regime question is one of the key diplomatic tests of the Delhi meeting.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The BRICS group, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is a forum where non-Western countries coordinate positions. Iran's foreign minister went to their meeting in New Delhi on 14 May and told them Iran was not blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The day before, Iran's own security council had approved a formal plan to control the strait with tolls and corridors. Iran told the BRICS audience one thing and did another thing at home. The key question now is whether India, which chairs BRICS and buys a lot of Iranian oil, will back Iran's framing or stay neutral.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Iran's need to maintain non-Western alignment while the bilateral US-Iran track operates through Pakistan reflects a domestic constraint: Mojtaba Khamenei's government cannot be seen to negotiate with Washington without simultaneously demonstrating non-Western solidarity. The BRICS presence is a legitimacy-maintenance exercise for the domestic audience, not a negotiating move directed at Washington.

The structural tension between Araghchi's "no obstacles" claim at BRICS and the SNSC's written Hormuz security plan produced one day earlier is resolved by audience separation: the denial is for BRICS consumption, the written architecture is for operational and legal purposes. Both can coexist because they address different audiences on different registers.

What could happen next?

Consequence
BRICS communique language on Hormuz will reveal India's positioning: adoption of Iran's 'no obstacles' framing would give the PGSA toll regime non-Western multilateral cover; de-escalation language would leave Iran's regulatory framing without BRICS endorsement.
Risk
Bagheri Kani's call for BRICS states to act against US aggression tests India's chair neutrality at a time when Delhi has maintained public silence on US Iran sanctions targeting Indian firms in the Shamkhani network.

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from Hong Kong SAR China

Hong Kong SAR China

LeftRight

Primary parallel: The 2015 Vienna nuclear talks offer the closest structural match: Iran ran a bilateral US-Iran track through the P5+1 format while maintaining a separate multilateral position-staking exercise through the Non-Aligned Movement.

The dual-track approach allowed Tehran to claim both engagement with the West and solidarity with the Global South. Araghchi, who was Iran's deputy negotiator at Vienna, is now repeating the same diplomatic architecture at a larger institutional stage.

Counter-parallel: China's 2003 six-party talks on North Korea show the limits of the pattern: Beijing hosted a multilateral process that gave Pyongyang non-Western cover, but the framework ultimately required bilateral US-DPRK terms to move. The BRICS stage gives Iran audience credibility without moving the bilateral terms.

Consensus view: Crisis Group's Iran researcher Ali Vaez and the Institute for Iran-Eurasia Studies' Brenda Shaffer have both documented Iran's multi-track diplomacy pattern: Tehran runs a bilateral US channel through Pakistan while simultaneously staking out a non-Western multilateral position to prevent either track from fully closing.

Araghchi's Delhi statement fits the pattern: it maintains Iran's negotiating credibility with BRICS members without committing to the bilateral channel's terms.

Counter-view: Indian strategic affairs analyst C. Raja Mohan argues India's BRICS chair position makes Delhi a structural moderating force on any confrontational communique language: India is the largest non-Chinese user of Iranian-routed crude and cannot afford the bloc-solidarity framing Bagheri Kani requested. The BRICS communique will likely emerge as de-escalation-forward rather than anti-US, which limits the practical value of Araghchi's Delhi presence.

Key tension: Whether the BRICS communique adopts Iran's "no obstacles" framing, which would give Tehran non-Western multilateral cover for the PGSA toll regime, or adopts India's expected de-escalation language, which would limit that cover.

First Reported In

Update #97 · Chips for Beijing, no paper for Iran

South China Morning Post· 14 May 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Araghchi flies to BRICS Delhi 14-15 May

Araghchi's 12 May announcement that he would attend BRICS Delhi set up his 14 May denial of Hormuz obstruction.

Occurred 12 May 2026

Read story →

Mokhber calls Hormuz an atomic-bomb equivalent

Iran's 9 May declaration of Hormuz as a strategic deterrent prefigures Araghchi's diplomatic framing as 'no obstacles' at BRICS.

Occurred 9 May 2026

Read story →

This Event

Araghchi denies Hormuz obstruction at BRICS Delhi

Iran ran a simultaneous dual operation on 13-14 May: writing institutional Hormuz architecture at home while denying obstruction to a non-Western multilateral audience abroad, a posture that claims diplomatic credibility at BRICS without ceding operational control of the strait.

Led to

Iran runs Hormuz as a favours system

Araghchi at BRICS Delhi on 14 May had already said Iran created no Hormuz obstacles; the 15-16 May Mehr News doctrine statement and the OilPrice-documented bilateral passage deals codified what he hinted at Delhi.

Occurred 15 May 2026

Read story →

UAE blocks BRICS Iran statement after Gulf drone strikes

Araghchi's BRICS claim that Iran created no Hormuz obstacles (ID:3290) is the same session where the Iran-UAE joint-statement deadlock occurred

Occurred 15 May 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Shipping and war-risk insurers

War-risk premiums for Hormuz transits reached 3 to 10 per cent of hull value on 17 July, against 0.25 per cent before the war, as Brent cleared $87 and daily transits fell to eight vessels. Underwriters are pricing the confirmed UKMTO mine near the Traffic Separation Scheme, not the IRGC's unconfirmed 18 July mining claim, which CENTCOM called false.

Oman

Abbas Araghchi led an Iranian delegation to Oman-hosted talks in Muscat on 18 July, an agenda confined to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and nothing else. Oman's decades of studied neutrality make it the one channel neither Washington nor Tehran needs to be seen initiating, and that narrowness is what lets it survive the bombing.

Kuwait

Kuwait's electricity ministry asked residents to ration water and power after the IRGC set Shuaiba's generating units alight on 17 July, the second Kuwaiti site struck in two days. The country draws 90 per cent of its drinking water from plants sharing power infrastructure, so one strike reaches every tap in the hottest weeks of the year.

Jordan

Amman still reports no casualties or damage of its own from the 17 July attack even as CENTCOM confirmed two American dead on the same runway, a line it has not amended since. Hosting the base that produced the war's first US fatalities puts Jordan's decades-old defence arrangement with Washington under a domestic scrutiny it has not faced before.

Tehran / Artesh and AEOI

Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation called the alleged Darkhovin strike a violation of international law, while the Artesh put Operation Saeqeh, its campaign against Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain, at phases 14 and 15 by 18 July. Domestic outlets Fars and Tabnak claim 16 Americans dead since February, a toll no source outside Iran supports.

CENTCOM / Washington

CENTCOM confirmed two dead and one missing at Muwaffaq Salti on 17 July, when Jordan says its air defences intercepted eight of ten incoming missiles, against five of five stopped on 10 June. Its own strikes stay aimed at Iran's coast, interior and navy, not the Artesh campaign that killed them.