After Iran directly attacked Israel on Saturday night, many countries condemned the unprecedented strike, characterizing the attack as a dangerous escalation and a threat to global stability. Brazil was initially not among the countries to condemn the attack. Only after a massive wave of criticism did the country’s left-wing government issue a minor condemnation of Iran’s actions.
On Monday, Brazil’s Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a note that fell short of condemning Iran’s attack. “Brazil appeals to all involved parties to exercise maximum restraint and calls on the international community to mobilize efforts to prevent escalation,” the ministry stated.
The statement was considered another sign of the historically weak diplomatic relations between Israel and Brazil. The relationship between the two countries has been in crisis since February, when Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva compared the war in Gaza to the Holocaust.
After a wave of public criticism, Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mauro Vieira explained the note in a press conference. “The original note was made when Iran’s attack had just begun,” Vieira said. “We also expressed the fear that the operation could contaminate other countries. But this was done when we didn’t have a clear understanding of the extent or scope of the measures taken, and, as we always do, we appealed for restraint and understanding between the parties.”
“Brazil always condemns any act of violence and calls for understanding between the parties,” Vieira continued.
Brazil's evolving Middle East diplomacy
The Media Line spoke to Monique Sochaczewski, a leading foreign policy scholar based in Rio de Janeiro and an Israel studies fellow at Brandeis University, about Brazil’s evolving diplomatic stance during the Israel-Hamas conflict.
“During the initial developments of October 7 between Israel and Hamas, Brazilian diplomacy seemed to follow its tradition of a balanced and constructive dialogue for peace, but as the war progressed and increased the number of deaths among Palestinian women and children, the rhetoric of the Brazilian government became more critical of Israel,” Sochaczewski explained.
Since then, Brazil’s Middle Eastern diplomacy has followed the logic of internal Brazilian political divides, Sochaczewski said. “Lula, the current Brazilian president, a left-wing politician, failed to see the nuances of what is happening in the Middle East and followed an ideological foreign policy, reacting to the fact that [Jair] Bolsonaro, the previous Brazilian president and far right-wing politician, was a very vocal supporter of Israel,” she noted.
“The current leadership in Brazilian government and diplomacy believe that the Iranian actions were an answer to imperialist aggression and provocation,” Sochaczewski continued. “They see this through anti-US lenses and never seem to consider that the imperialist power project in the Middle East, in this case, is Iran. In their view, the alleged imperialism sees aggression always coming from Israel.”
Sochaczewski said that Lula’s foreign policy, which once prioritized constructive relationships with both Israel and Palestinians, has become more ideological since Foreign Minister Celso Amorim began officially advising Lula last year.
