Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva warned that the escalation in the Middle East represents “a serious threat to international peace and security,” stressing that its repercussions do not stop at the region’s borders, but extend to energy, input, and food supply chains. Lula made the remarks while receiving South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in Brasília on March 9, 2026, saying he had conveyed to his counterpart his “deep concern” over the escalation of the conflict, describing its humanitarian and economic effects as “far-reaching,” and arguing that “dialogue and diplomacy” remain “the only viable path” toward a lasting solution.

“I expressed to President Ramaphosa my deep concern over the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, which represents a serious threat to international peace and security, with wide-ranging humanitarian and economic consequences”, lula said.

He added: “These conflicts are having harmful effects on energy, food input, and supply chains. The most vulnerable, especially women and children, are bearing the heaviest impact of these crises.”

READ: US forces strike over 5,000 targets in Iran in 1st 10 days: Central Command

Lula stressed that Latin American positions take on particular importance, because the region is not insulated from the fallout of the war, even if it is not a direct party to it.

  View this post on Instagram   A post shared by PT – Partido dos Trabalhadores (@ptbrasil)

A post shared by PT – Partido dos Trabalhadores (@ptbrasil)

Brazil was among the first Latin American governments to issue a clear official position toward the American- Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28, it condemned the U.S. and Israeli strikes on targets inside Iran, arguing that they had taken place while negotiations were still the only possible path to peace, and calling on all parties to respect international law and exercise “maximum restraint.” 

A day later, in a new statement addressing the widening hostilities, Brazil also condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Gulf states, while stressing at the same time that the right to self-defense remains exceptional and is constrained by proportionality and a direct connection to an armed attack.

Economically, the region appears more exposed than geography might suggest.

Rising oil prices, shipping disruptions, and the risks surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are placing additional pressure on Latin America.

Rising oil prices, shipping disruptions, and the risks surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are placing additional pressure on Latin America.

As a major agricultural power, Brazil faces direct exposure to any disruption in fertilizer and energy supplies. Reuters reported on March 5 that the country imports all of its urea needs, and that around 41% of those imports pass through the Hormuz route, making any disruption to shipping in the Gulf a direct threat to agricultural costs and food production.

View this post on Instagram

But Brazil is not the only voice in the region, nor does Latin America move as a single political bloc. According to a recent survey published by the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, Ecuador, Panama, and Paraguay issued statements condemning Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Gulf states allied with Washington, without highlighting the U.S. and Israeli strikes with the same clarity. 

Chile and Uruguay adopted a formula of dual condemnation. Both expressed concern over the military escalation, with Chile condemning the attacks on Iran as well as the Iranian response against Gulf states, while emphasizing the principles of the UN Charter, nuclear non-proliferation, and civilian protection. 

View this post on Instagram

Uruguay, for its part, spoke of its “grave concern” over both the attacks and the Iranian response, calling for de-escalation and a return to diplomatic channels. Guatemala adopted a tone closer to a call for restraint, stressing the need for “maximum moderation” and the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela, meanwhile, moved closer to outright condemnation of the strikes on Iran and to calls for international action and a return to negotiations.

Havana described the attacks as “illegal” and a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, while Colombia rejected the aggression against Iran and called for decisive UN intervention to prevent the conflict from widening. 

Havana described the attacks as “illegal” and a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, while Colombia rejected the aggression against Iran and called for decisive UN intervention to prevent the conflict from widening. 

Venezuela, for its part, warned of a scenario of highly dangerous instability and called for negotiations to resume, while expressing concern over attacks on civilian facilities inside Iranian territory. Peru maintained a more general tone, calling for peace and dialogue without directly naming the parties involved.

By contrast, Ecuador, Panama, and Paraguay showed a different orientation, focusing their statements on condemning the Iranian response, particularly attacks on Gulf states, without giving the U.S. and Israeli strikes the same prominence. 

According to the Americas Society Council of the Americas, Argentina was the clearest example in this camp, openly endorsing the U.S.-Israeli action and presenting its position as a contribution to neutralizing what it described as an Iranian threat to international stability and regional security.

This divergence reflects more than just differences in diplomatic language. It reveals a split within Latin America between governments that prioritize sovereignty and opposition to the widening of war, and others that view the crisis through the lens of security deterrence and their close relationship with Washington.

This divergence reflects more than just differences in diplomatic language. It reveals a split within Latin America between governments that prioritize sovereignty and opposition to the widening of war, and others that view the crisis through the lens of security deterrence and their close relationship with Washington.

It also explains why Brazil, despite later condemning both the strikes and the response, appeared particularly keen to link its position to the direct economic cost of escalation, especially in energy, food, and supply chains.

OPINION: Mexico declines Trump’s Gaza Peace Board and reaffirms support for Palestine

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor