The new government of Prime Minister Tarique Rahman no longer has the luxury of living in the same world it had assumed it would deal with, especially with regard to foreign policy pursuits.
Only 11 days after taking office, President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran at the instigation of Israeli Premier Benjamin Nataniyahu -- and with it, it has shattered the world's stability.
When change is the constant factor in worldly affairs, this asymmetrical war with unpredictable consequences may only accelerate the shift in global politics and thus affect the patterns of inter-state relations.
How would that new world look like for a country like Bangladesh? How does it formulate its policies and take state-level decisions that are beneficial to its people?
Within two months of Trump's military operation to capture the president of a sovereign country, Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela, the US has fumbled in its avowed mission to change the regime in Iran through strikes from the sky.
The lone superpower of three and a half decades has also shifted its position from targeting Iran’s nuclear ambition to regime change to clearing the Strait of Hormuz. Militarily, Iran has proved that survival is possible against much advanced military power with cheaper arms and with determination not to surrender despite the killing of its top leaders and massive damage to properties.
Trump's America has additionally confirmed its diplomatic isolation in terms of depleted support from the “civilized world” -- especially the allies in Europe. One of the pioneers of the United Nations (UN) system in the post-World War II era, the US has weakened the global body itself by withdrawing from 31 UN entities and Trump's forming of the Board of Peace in the manner of corporate choice.
After the US effectively kicked out China from Venezuela's oil trade in January, the war on Iran has offered Beijing the scope to not only come much closer to Tehran, but also emerge as a dominant player in the Persian Gulf region. Russia, exhausted by the Ukraine war and undermined in the Middle East by the fall of Bashar Al-Assad's regime in Syria in December 2024, has found the occasion to re-enter the region by standing by Iran.
Countries such as France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, and South Korea would presumably be interested in having Tehran on board in future talks or deals on energy trade that is done through Iran's sphere of influence on the two sides of the Arab peninsula -- the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-al-Mandab as two vital routes for energy trade.
On the new Middle East scene that demonstrates reshaping of the global alignments, India, an American ally, which had unique relations with Iran and Arab countries as well, has lost its value to mediate between the belligerents and other relevant powers due largely to hobnob with Israel, a hated Zionist state that has carried out genocide in Gaza and initiated the illegal war on Iran.
In a state of puzzle for a reckless Trump in the Israeli-American aggression on Iran, three countries -- Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey -- have appeared as the mediators to exchange messages between Washington and Tehran. Islamabad has further cemented its position in the talks in times of war in its neighbourhood, by turning into a host of direct talks involving US and Iranian state representatives.
Where does our nation of almost 180 million, half of America's and at parity with Russia, stand in terms of mediation in resolving disputes between nations and more active participation in international affairs? This is the country which was elected member of the UN Security Council and an important player in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation within 10 years of its birth in 1971.
When the Iranian students made American diplomats hostage for 444 days after the 1979 Islamic Revolution due to Washington's patronization of Iran's previous regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, US President Jimmy Carter requested President Ziaur Rahman to help overcome the situation.
As the Democratic candidate, Carter was trailing Republican challenger Ronald Reagan in opinion polls. Following consultation with his advisers, President Zia conveyed to Jimmy Carter Dhaka's inability to persuade Iranian leaders in view of their post-revolutionary bitterness.
In the current conflict, Bangladesh's official statement shocked Tehran. At the beginning of the war, the Iranian Ambassador in Dhaka expressed disappointment at Bangladesh's “vague” statement that made no mention of the killing of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and refrained from condemning the aggression. However, an adventurous statement could also cost national interests.
Given Bangladesh's visible tilt towards some powers or quiet compulsions to side with some, it would not be easy to make the finest foreign policy choices in the post-Iran war world without serious political and intellectual exercise, adequate homework, and proper diplomatic preparedness.
Pundits say foreign policy is the extension of domestic policy, so democratization of foreign policy is the call of the day after the elected government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party assumed office. That demands parliamentary oversight, as the case is in other democracies, and discussions on foreign policy issues in public forums and academies.
If you ask a street smart person or online search engine what Bangladesh's major foreign policy issues and challenges are, answers would most likely include balancing major powers like US, China, and India, economic diplomacy, energy security, maritime security and blue economy, water sharing of trans-boundary rivers, human rights, poor regional cooperation, Rohingya crisis and climate diplomacy. These issues are known to everyone and anyone at a surface level, yet were not addressed adequately during the one and a half decades of the Awami League's rule.
How Bangladesh would now make new friends - something required in a new global context to uphold national interests - while maintaining workable relations with old allies is a matter of pragmatism. What is clear is that it cannot be achieved with a backdated, bureaucratic mindset.
It is the people's representatives and true politicians who are supposed to understand national interest better, thanks to their public engagement, commitment, and long-term vision. There should be political consensus on foreign policy - which should be debated academically and executed professionally.
More than anything else, the new government's political position -- Bangladesh first -- would match the foreign policy objectives of maximizing national interests and positioning the country as an active player in inter-state relations and global platforms. It also means not being a party to proxy war or trade war. This policy requires bold steps using soft power. It must also follow the old school thought that moderation is the strength of Bangladesh's foreign policy.
Facing the situation arising out of the Iran war, the new government may consider forming a high-powered task force comprising foreign policy thinkers and practitioners, parliamentarians, and politicians along with other stakeholders to identify challenges for Bangladesh in the international arena and suggest solutions to those issues.
As great leaders determine and shape foreign policy of a nation in times of crisis and political transition, Tarique Rahman has a historic opportunity to give new direction for the country's international relations in the foreseeable future.
Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist. Email: [email protected].
