Already, there are signs of classic crisis behaviour. Panic buying, hoarding, informal resale of fuel at inflated prices, and rising tensions at petrol pumps. These are not the symptoms of a stable system. They are the early tremors of a breakdown in trust.
International law appears to bind only the weak nations but not the powerful, mighty ones. Afghanistan, Gaza, Guantanamo Bay, and targeted actions against foreign leaders all show how rules can be bypassed without consequence.
Iranian leadership has demonstrated remarkable resilience, shaped by the mosaic defence, the bolster policy of Iran after the death of Kashem Soleimani.
Modern warfare increasingly targets economic infrastructure rather than traditional military formations. Oil terminals, pipelines, power plants and ports have become instruments of pressure in conflicts across the world. The objective is not merely to defeat an enemy army but to weaken an adversary’s economic foundations.
International law and global stability are not distant abstractions for Bangladesh but essential pillars of economic resilience and national planning.
Both the USA and Israel have adopted evasive strategies influenced by various factors, such as diverting attention from the Epstein scandal, preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon despite Iran repeatedly denying its intent through negotiations in Geneva, the potential failure of Trump’s MAGA project, and notably, projecting a false sense of control over Iran before Trump’s visit to China to gain bargaining leverage. The length of the conflict will depend on the conflicting attitudes of the USA and Iran’s determination to withstand the war.
A prolonged conflict in the Middle East would likely trigger a slump in consumer demand in Western markets, leaving the RMG sector vulnerable to the dual blow of dwindling orders and the logistical nightmare of disrupted maritime routes.
Firdaus embodies the Iranian identity, Hafiz brings ecstasy, Sadi offers wisdom, Khayyam presents doubt, and Rumi provides answers. The psychology of the Iranian people is more complex than Westerners might understand.
Since 1945, and specifically since colonizing Palestine with Israel and taking the baton of Empire from Britain, the US has been waging imperial domination around the globe, with the safety of claiming the distinction of not being an overt colonial force.
Instead of a single battlefield, the United States could find itself managing simultaneous crises across several countries, dramatically increasing the complexity and cost of military operations. Recent history offers sobering lessons about the limits of military power in such environments.
Bangladesh deserves better than slogan-driven geopolitics. It deserves journalism that can critique American power without romanticizing Iranian power, question Israeli policy without indulging conspiracy, and evaluate Russia, China, or Pakistan without reflexive alignment.
We have a choice: To be passive consumers of the spectacle, or active collaborators in writing a different ending -- one based not on fear and division, but on the unbreakable, transnational solidarity of those who believe, against all odds.
It is often said that there is no personal loss to the architects of war. That statement may be rhetorically exaggerated, yet it captures an essential imbalance. Decision-makers operate at a distance from the battlefield. Their families are rarely in the line of fire.
What we may be witnessing is not the eruption of uncontrolled conflict -- but a controlled application of force designed to close a 30-year nuclear standoff. History will not judge this moment by the explosions. It will judge it by what follows them.
For Bangladesh, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would not represent a diplomatic crisis with Tehran. It would represent a market crisis. The country’s exposure lies in its increasing dependence on globally traded LNG without deep diversification, strategic reserves, or substantial domestic alternatives.
Emerging markets ETFs’ rally has been somewhat of a surprise: They own shares of companies in less-developed nations. For decades, these stocks took a backseat with investors who would rather pay up for shares of giant companies in developed nations like the U.S. But now, many factors are working in emerging markets’ favor.
