Iran war and the bankruptcy of Bangladesh foreign policy

The US–Israel war on Iran has shaken the whole world. The surprising air attacks on February 28, amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations, came as a shocking development, drawing condemnations and muted responses from around the world. Bangladesh’s reactions to the war, crafted in measured words, condemned violations of sovereignty of the Gulf states by Iranian counterstrikes, but not Iran’s sovereignty violated by the US and Israel. The reference to Iran as the primary victim was missing, exposing not just economic vulnerability, which is widely acknowledged, but a deeper, structural weakness in Bangladesh’s foreign policy. The war has not created this weakness; it has simply revealed it. Bangladesh today finds itself scrambling to manage fuel shortages, rising prices, and diplomatic ambiguity while avoiding offense to any major power. The government’s cautious statements, carefully worded to offend no one, have drawn criticism at home and scrutiny abroad. Beneath this lies a harder truth: Bangladesh does not have a coherent foreign policy strategy. What it has instead is a reactive, risk-averse posture shaped more by dependency than by principle. This is what can fairly be called a form of foreign policy bankruptcy. A Far Away War with Ripple Effects The Iran war is geographically distant, but its consequences are immediate. Bangladesh is not a participant in the conflict, yet it is deeply affected by it. This is the paradox of globalization for smaller states. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply, and any disruption there sends shockwaves through energy markets. When conflict escalates in the Strait of Hormuz corridor, Bangladesh feels it almost instantly through fuel prices, shipping disruptions, and inflation. Already, the impact is visible. Fuel shortages have forced the government to reduce working hours and impose energy-saving measures. Panic buying and even violence linked to fuel scarcity have emerged, underscoring how fragile the domestic situation is. Economists have warned that the war could hit Bangladesh “like an earthquake,” triggering a chain reaction: rising costs, weakened exports, pressure on remittances, and strain on foreign reserves. In other words, Bangladesh is not merely observing the war, it is also absorbing its consequences. The Illusion of Neutrality Faced with such a crisis, one might expect the country to articulate a clear diplomatic position. Instead, Bangladesh has opted for what appears to be neutrality. Official statements emphasize restraint, dialogue, and peace. On the surface, this seems reasonable. After all, Bangladesh has little to gain from taking sides in a major geopolitical conflict. But neutrality is not simply the absence of alignment. It requires consistency, credibility, and balance. And here is where the problem begins. Critics have pointed out that Bangladesh’s statements condemned certain actions—particularly retaliatory strikes—while avoiding direct criticism of the initial military aggression by the US and Israel. Others have noted that the language appeared tilted, subtly accommodating Western positions rather than maintaining strict impartiality. This is not neutrality. It is selective caution. True neutrality would involve a principled stance: opposing violations of sovereignty regardless of who commits them, advocating international law consistently, and maintaining a clear moral framework. Bangladesh’s approach, by contrast, appears shaped by fear of consequences rather than adherence to principles. Dependency as Policy To understand this, one must look at the structural realities of Bangladesh’s economy and diplomacy. Bangladesh is heavily dependent on external actors in three key areas: energy imports, export markets (especially in the West), and remittances from migrant workers in the Middle East. Each of these creates a constraint on foreign policy. Energy dependency is perhaps the most immediate. Bangladesh imports the majority of its fuel, making it highly sensitive to global price shocks and supply disruptions. When war threatens supply routes, Bangladesh cannot afford to antagonize any party that might influence access. Remittances add another layer. Millions of Bangladeshi workers are employed across the Middle East, including in countries directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. Any diplomatic misstep could have consequences for these workers and for the economy that depends on their earnings. Finally, there is the question of geopolitical alignment. Bangladesh maintains economic ties with Western countries, particularly in trade and development financing. At the same time, it engages with China and other regional powers. Balancing these relationships requires careful maneuvering. But what is presented as “balance” often becomes paralysis. Foreign policy is not only about avoiding risks. It is also about shaping perceptions. When Bangladesh avoids taking clear positions on major international issues, it risks appearing irrelevant or opportunistic. Neither is desirable. Strategic Ambiguity Bangladesh’s foreign policy is often marked by strategic ambiguity. There is a difference between strategic ambiguity and incoherence, however. Strategic ambiguity serves a purpose. It signals flexibility while preserving leverage. Incoherence, by contrast, signals weakness. In the case of the Iran war, Bangladesh’s response has leaned toward the latter. By failing to articulate a consistent stance grounded in international norms, Bangladesh undermines its own credibility. This matters because smaller states rely heavily on moral and legal frameworks in global politics. They lack the military or economic power to enforce their interests unilaterally. Instead, they depend on rules, institutions, and alliances. If Bangladesh does not consistently defend those rules, it weakens its own position. Foreign Policy Failure and Domestic Consequences The effects of this foreign policy weakness are not confined to diplomatic circles. They spill over into domestic life. The current energy crisis illustrates this clearly. Bangladesh’s reliance on imported fuel, combined with limited diversification, has left it exposed to external shocks. When the war disrupted supply chains, the country had few buffers. This is not just an economic issue. It is a policy failure. The turn toward coal in response to energy shortages, for example, highlights the absence of a sustainable energy strategy. Short-term fixes are replacing long-term solutions. Foreign policy is not only about statements and alliances. It is also about long-term planning: securing energy sources, diversifying trade, building resilience. In this sense, Bangladesh’s current predicament reflects years of insufficient strategic thinking. A Pattern, Not an Exception It would be a mistake to view Bangladesh’s response to the Iran war as an isolated case. It fits a broader pattern. On multiple international issues, Bangladesh has tended to adopt cautious, non-committal positions. This approach is often justified as pragmatism. But over time, it creates a perception of inconsistency. Diplomacy requires not only flexibility but also identity. Countries need to be known for something—whether it is a commitment to peacekeeping, a stance on human rights, or a leadership role in specific areas. Bangladesh has, at times, shown potential in this regard, particularly through its contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. But these efforts have not translated into a broader, coherent foreign policy identity. Instead, the country often appears reactive, adjusting its positions based on immediate pressures rather than long-term objectives. The Limits of Small State Realism Defenders of Bangladesh’s approach might argue that small states have limited options. In a world dominated by great powers, caution is necessary. There is truth in this. Bangladesh cannot afford to alienate key partners or become entangled in conflicts beyond its control. But caution does not have to mean passivity. Other small states have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain independence and credibility through consistent, principled positions. They do not pick fights unnecessarily, but they also do not avoid clarity when it matters. The difference lies in strategy. A strategic approach would involve: clearly defined national interests, consistent application of principles, diversification of economic and diplomatic relationships, investment in long-term resilience. Bangladesh’s current approach falls short on all these fronts. The Risks Ahead The Iran war may eventually end, but the underlying issues will remain. Global geopolitics is becoming more volatile, not less. Conflicts are increasingly interconnected, and their effects spread quickly across regions. For countries like Bangladesh, this means that external shocks will become more frequent. Without a stronger foreign policy framework, Bangladesh will continue to be reactive, managing crises as they arise rather than preparing for them. This has real costs. Economic instability, social unrest, and diplomatic marginalization are not abstract risks. They are already visible in the current situation. Towards a Different Approach If there is a lesson to be drawn from the Iran war, it is that Bangladesh needs to rethink its foreign policy. This does not mean abandoning pragmatism but redefining it. Pragmatism should not be about avoiding all risks. It should be about managing risks in pursuit of clear goals. For Bangladesh, this could involve: developing a more diversified energy strategy to reduce vulnerability, strengthening regional partnerships beyond immediate economic considerations, articulating clear positions on international law and sovereignty, building diplomatic capacity to engage more actively in global forums. None of these are easy. All require political will and long-term commitment. But the alternative is to continue as before: reactive, constrained, and increasingly exposed. To conclude, the Iran war has not created Bangladesh’s foreign policy problems. It has revealed them. What appears as neutrality is often selective caution. What is presented as pragmatism often masks dependency. And what is described as balance often amounts to indecision. In a world of rising uncertainty, this approach is becoming less sustainable. Foreign policy is not only about surviving the present. It is about preparing for the future. Bangladesh, at this moment, is struggling to do either. That is why the current moment feels like a kind of bankruptcy. Not a sudden collapse, but a gradual erosion of capacity, clarity, and confidence. The question is whether this crisis will serve as a turning point – or just another missed opportunity. The story first appeared in Middle East Monitor. The story was written by Dr. Mohammed Nuruzzaman, Professor of International Relations at North South University, Dhaka. He can be reached at: mohammed.nuruzzaman01@northsouth.edu .