Trump’s Mass Deportation Plan: A New Era in U.S. Immigration Policy

M A Hossain,

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office in January, immigration policy is set to undergo a significant transformation. A central promise of Trump’s campaign was addressing what he described as the Biden Administration’s failure to control the border, a situation he claims has allowed millions of illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Trump’s proposed mass deportation plan has stirred debate across political and social circles, with supporters viewing it as a restoration of law and order, while critics argue it may lead to humanitarian and logistical challenges.

Under President Biden, the southern border faced what many described as a crisis, with over 10 million illegal crossings reported during his administration. While the precise number of undocumented immigrants currently in the US remains uncertain, estimates suggest the figure could range between 20 and 30 million. For Trump and his supporters, these numbers represent a failure of enforcement that demands immediate correction.

Trump’s campaign centered on reversing this trend through measures that would not only remove illegal immigrants but also deter further unauthorized entries. His decisive electoral victory, often interpreted as a mandate to act on this promise, has provided his administration with the political capital to pursue these policies aggressively.

Trump’s commitment to immigration enforcement became evident shortly after his election victory. He appointed Tom Homan, a former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Senior Fellow at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, as his “border czar.” Homan’s reputation as a hardliner on immigration enforcement signals that the administration intends to make good on its mass deportation pledge.

Initial reports suggest that Trump’s strategy will prioritize deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records or outstanding removal orders. To carry out this ambitious plan, the administration has considered utilizing all available resources, including the military, to assist with enforcement. However, Trump’s team hopes to reduce the need for large-scale operations through policies designed to encourage voluntary departures.

One of the cornerstones of Trump’s deportation plan is a strategy known as “attrition through enforcement.” This approach aims to create an environment where living and working in the US becomes untenable for undocumented immigrants, prompting many to leave voluntarily.

The economic incentives for illegal immigration are clear. For many foreign nationals, wages in the US, even at minimum levels, far exceed those in their home countries. For instance, the minimum wage in Mexico is less than $15 a day, whereas in many US cities, it is $15 an hour. This wage disparity, combined with access to social services and safety nets in the US, fuels a significant portion of illegal immigration.

In cities like New York, undocumented immigrants have reportedly received benefits such as free food, healthcare, and even accommodations in high-end hotels. Critics argue that such policies create a “magnet effect,” encouraging more individuals to cross the border illegally. Trump’s administration plans to dismantle this incentive structure through a series of targeted measures.

To reduce the appeal of living in the US without legal status, Trump’s team proposes several key measures:

Taxing Remittances: Many undocumented immigrants send a portion of their earnings back to their home countries, contributing billions of dollars annually to foreign economies. By heavily taxing these remittances, the administration aims to reduce the financial benefits of working illegally in the US.

Restricting Access to Welfare Programs: Trump’s plan includes banning undocumented immigrants from accessing social services such as healthcare and housing assistance.

Workplace Enforcement: Cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers is another priority. Homan has pledged to ramp up workplace raids, signaling that businesses exploiting illegal labor will face severe penalties.

These measures are intended to send a clear message: the US will no longer tolerate illegal immigration, and those who stay will face significant hardships.

While attrition through enforcement could lead to a significant reduction in the undocumented population, many will choose to remain despite these hardships. For these individuals, direct deportation will be necessary.

The logistical challenges of mass deportation are immense. Coordinating the removal of millions of individuals requires substantial resources, including personnel, detention facilities, and transportation. Trump’s administration is reportedly exploring partnerships with state and local governments and, in extreme cases, the use of military assets to support these efforts.

Critics argue that such measures could lead to violations of civil liberties and human rights. Activist groups and corporate interests are expected to mount significant opposition, citing the potential for families to be separated and communities disrupted. However, Trump’s supporters argue that enforcing immigration laws is essential to maintaining national sovereignty and restoring public trust in the government’s ability to secure the border.

Trump’s deportation plan also aims to address the root causes of illegal immigration by deterring future surges at the border. Strengthening border security, including completing the border wall, will play a key role in this effort. The administration also plans to renegotiate immigration agreements with neighboring countries, seeking their cooperation in preventing illegal crossings.

For many Americans, the issue of illegal immigration is not just about border security but also about economic fairness. The influx of undocumented workers is often perceived as driving down wages for US citizens and straining public resources. Trump’s plan appeals to these concerns by prioritizing the interests of American workers and taxpayers.

Reversing what Trump has described as years of “border malfeasance” under the Biden Administration will be a complex and contentious process. While the initial focus will be on removing undocumented immigrants with criminal records, the broader goal is to create a lasting system that discourages illegal immigration and enforces the rule of law.

As Trump prepares to take office, his administration faces the dual challenge of implementing these policies effectively while navigating intense political and social opposition. The success of his deportation plan will likely depend on his ability to balance enforcement with practicality and to address the humanitarian concerns that are certain to arise.

Ultimately, Trump’s approach to immigration will shape not only his legacy but also the broader debate over national identity, sovereignty, and the role of law in American society. Whether his plan succeeds in restoring control over the border or sparks further division remains to be seen.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

  This article published at :

1. Hindu Post, India : 26 Nov, 24

2. Daily Asian Age, BD : 27 Nov, 24

3. IRLI.org,USA : 26 Nov, 24

4. Weekly Blitz, BD : 25 Nov, 24

5. The Nation, Pak : 03 Dec,24

ICC's Arrest Warrents Against Netanyahu et al Create Stir

M A Hossain,

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on November 21 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif, citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the ongoing Gaza conflict. This unprecedented move by the Hague-based court has sent shockwaves through international politics, sparking mixed reactions among Western states and strong condemnation from Israel.

The ICC accuses Netanyahu and Gallant of employing starvation as a method of warfare by intentionally depriving Gaza’s civilian population of essential supplies, including food, water, and medicine. Prosecutors allege there was no military necessity for such actions, arguing they constitute violations of international law. Mohammed Deif, a key Hamas commander, is charged with orchestrating mass murder, torture, and hostage-taking during Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel.

The warrants are part of a broader ICC investigation that encompasses alleged crimes by both Israeli authorities and Hamas. This inquiry gained momentum following Israel’s military response to the October 7 assault, in which approximately 1,200 Israelis were killed and 250 were taken hostage. The Gaza health ministry reports that over 44,000 Palestinians have since been killed, with 1.9 million displaced. While Israel claims it targeted Deif in an earlier airstrike, Hamas has not confirmed his death.

The ICC’s decision has deeply divided the international community. Several Western nations, including the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, and Norway, have pledged to fulfill their obligations under the Rome Statute, which requires them to act on ICC arrest warrants. Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkampassured his parliament that authorities would comply with the court’s directives, emphasizing a commitment to international law. Sweden and Norway also reaffirmed their adherence to the treaty.

However, some officials have expressed discomfort with the ICC’s actions. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto criticized the court for equating Israeli leaders with Hamas, calling the decision a “mistake.” Austria’s Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg described the warrant as “utterly incomprehensible,” though his government signaled it would abide by the ICC’s ruling.

In contrast, France’s Foreign Ministry adopted a more cautious stance. Spokesman Christophe Lemoine acknowledged the legal complexities of the case while stopping short of committing to arresting Netanyahu or Gallant. France’s nuanced response reflects the broader tension between supporting international law and maintaining political alliances.

Hungary openly rejected the ICC’s decision, with Prime Minister Viktor Orban inviting Netanyahu to visit Hungary and denouncing the court’s move as unjust. Meanwhile, US Republican lawmakers have threatened sanctions against the ICC, calling the warrants an overreach. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated that Congress might impose punitive measures unless the court reverses its decision.

Unsurprisingly, the ICC’s actions have provoked a fierce backlash from Israeli leaders. President Isaac Herzog called the warrants “outrageous,” accusing the court of siding with terrorists and undermining justice. “The ICC has chosen terror and evil over democracy and freedom,” Herzog wrote on X (formerly Twitter), criticizing the court’s perceived bias against Israel.

The rhetoric from Israeli officials reflects deep-seated frustrations over what they see as a double standard in international law. Netanyahu and Gallant argue that their military actions were necessary to counter Hamas’s aggression and protect Israeli citizens.

The ICC’s decision has highlighted fault lines among Western nations regarding accountability for alleged war crimes. While some countries emphasize adherence to international law, others prioritize their political and strategic alliances with Israel.

The Netherlands has taken a particularly proactive stance. Alongside committing to act on the warrants, Dutch officials have sought to reduce non-essential contact with Netanyahu and Gallant. This comes amid heightened tensions in the country, including recent rioting between Israeli soccer fans and pro-Palestinian locals in Amsterdam.

At the same time, figures like Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, criticized the ICC’s actions, arguing that Israel deserves solidarity rather than condemnation. Wilders’s remarks reflect the broader debate within Europe over balancing legal obligations with political realities.

In Washington, the ICC warrants have further strained US-Israel relations. The Biden administration has not officially commented on the decision, but leading Republicans have come to Israel’s defense. Senator Susan Collins pledged to push for sanctions against the ICC, while other lawmakers criticized the court’s focus on Israel instead of Hamas.

The warrants also underscore the challenges facing the ICC as it navigates complex geopolitical conflicts. Last year, the court issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova over alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Both cases demonstrate the ICC’s willingness to target powerful leaders, but they also expose the court to accusations of bias and political interference.

The prospect of ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza could significantly impact Israel and its allies on multiple fronts. Israeli leaders like Netanyahu and Gallant would face severe limitations in traveling to the 124 ICC member states, as these states are obligated to detain individuals under ICC arrest warrants. This would isolate Israeli officials diplomatically and restrict their participation in international forums. However, enforcement remains uncertain, given that Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute.

Allies like the UK and France, who are ICC member states, would face immense political pressure to either comply with their obligations or risk undermining the ICC’s legitimacy. This could strain their relations with Israel or expose them to accusations of double standards if they fail to act.

Even if arrests are unlikely, the issuance of warrants would tarnish Israel's global image, reinforcing narratives of human rights abuses and potentially increasing international scrutiny. The situation highlights the double standards often applied by global powers. The U.S. opposes ICC jurisdiction over Israel while supporting actions against Russia, which exposes inconsistencies in the application of international law.

The ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Deif mark a pivotal moment in the Gaza conflict and international law. While the move underscores the court’s commitment to addressing alleged war crimes, it has also deepened divisions within the global community. As Western nations grapple with their obligations under the Rome Statute, the warrants raise pressing questions about the future of international justice and the role of the ICC in conflict resolution.

Whether the ICC’s actions will lead to meaningful accountability or further polarization remains to be seen, but the decision has already reshaped the discourse on Israel, Palestine, and the broader struggle for justice in wartime.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at:

1. Daily Observer, BD: 25 Nov,24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD: 24 Nov,24

3. The Nation, Pak : 26 Nov, 24

4. New Age, BD : 27 Nov, 24

5. Pakistan Today, Pak : 28 Nov, 24

Strong US-ME Relations

M A Hossain,

With Donald Trump’s re-election as the 47th President of the United States, Middle Eastern leaders have shown renewed enthusiasm for strengthening ties with the US. This response reflects a preference among regional officials for the perceived predictability of Trump’s policies, contrasting with the previous administration’s strained relationships. While Joe Biden’s term was marked by Middle Eastern conflicts and shifting alliances, Trump’s return brings the prospect of a more familiar US approach to the region.

President Biden’s term witnessed numerous Middle Eastern conflicts, from the Gaza and Lebanon wars to a heightened presence of Iran-backed militias obstructing international shipping lanes. Biden’s initial actions, including halting weapons sales to Gulf allies and reassessing US ties with traditional partners, immediately strained relationships with nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. For instance, Biden’s decision to remove Yemen’s Houthi rebels from the terror blacklist, only to redesignate them later, was criticized, as the Houthis continued attacking vessels in the Red Sea and beyond.

These policies left many Gulf nations questioning US security commitments, especially after the abrupt 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden’s attempts to mend these strained relationships were overshadowed by challenges, including Israel-Hezbollah conflicts and other enduring regional tensions.

For Gulf leaders, Trump’s return signals a chance to revive favorable relations nurtured during his first term. Trump’s stance will encourage Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to find resolutions to the ongoing Gaza and Lebanon conflicts. Trump’s choice to make Saudi Arabia his first official foreign visit in 2017, along with his firm opposition to Iran’s influence, left a lasting impression among Gulf leaders.

UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed expressed hope for continued collaboration with the US on issues of prosperity and stability, underscoring the two nations’ historic alignment under the Abraham Accords, which saw peace agreements between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process remains a significant challenge. While Biden tried to broker normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, these efforts were hindered by the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the subsequent devastation in Gaza. Israel’s hardline policies in Gaza and the West Bank have strained its relationships with several Arab nations, including the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan, who expressed frustration with both Israeli actions and the US’s perceived lack of intervention.

Far-right elements in Netanyahu’s government have further complicated the peace process, threatening the potential for a two-state solution that Saudi Arabia has set as a precondition for diplomatic relations with Israel. Trump, however, had previously urged Netanyahu to resolve the Gaza conflict and has indicated plans to negotiate peace in Lebanon. Analysts believe that Trump’s leverage may push Netanyahu to prioritize ending the region’s wars to avoid jeopardizing US-Israel relations.

Under Trump’s second administration, Gulf nations are expected to strengthen ties with China, a shift that reflects a response to the perceived limitations of US security assurances. China’s influence in the Gulf has grown, particularly after brokering a historic 2023 reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, reducing direct confrontations and fostering regional stability. This marked a shift from the high-tension period of Trump’s first term, when Iranian forces attacked Saudi oil infrastructure and the Houthis targeted Abu Dhabi under Biden’s watch. The perceived lack of a decisive US response in both cases spurred Gulf nations to diversify their partnerships.

This pivot toward China reflects a departure from the traditional US-Gulf security arrangement, whereby Gulf states provided access to energy resources in return for US military protection. Gulf countries now seek broader security and economic partnerships with China to address regional security threats.

The Lebanon-Israel conflict presents a formidable task for Trump’s administration. Trump’s goal to stabilize Lebanon involves navigating a challenging environment, with Lebanon’s economic collapse, ineffective governance, and political tensions heightened by Israeli interventions. Lebanese leaders, including Hezbollah and anti-Hezbollah factions, are cautiously optimistic about a Trump administration that may push for peace rather than prolonged conflict. Trump’s support among Arab-Americans, fostered by Massad Boulos—whose son married Trump’s daughter—suggests a commitment to Lebanese peace and stability.

Additionally, Trump will inherit Biden’s agreement with Iraq, which plans for an international coalition withdrawal to conclude the ISIS fight. While Trump previously expressed a desire to reduce the US military footprint in the region, experts, including former Pentagon official Dana Stroul, caution that a hasty withdrawal could disrupt counter-ISIS operations in Syria and Iraq. The US has recently ramped up these efforts, signaling the ongoing threat posed by ISIS.

Trump may also renew negotiations with the Assad regime in Syria to secure the release of American hostages, though normalization with Assad remains prohibited by US law. Nonetheless, Trump’s willingness to explore arrangements with Assad, potentially curbing Iranian influence in Lebanon and limiting Captagon trafficking, reflects a pragmatic approach to Syria. The Arab League’s recent normalization with Assad further underscores the regional momentum for engagement with Syria, though Trump might leverage such ties to counter Iran’s destabilizing presence.

As Trump embarks on his second term, the Middle East awaits his administration’s approach with a blend of optimism and caution. Gulf nations are eager to restore the robust alliances of Trump’s first term, while countries like Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria present complex obstacles. Trump’s “America First” strategy, prioritizing domestic interests and reducing Middle Eastern entanglements, aligns with his legacy of avoiding prolonged foreign interventions.

However, Trump’s success will depend on his ability to secure peace deals, stabilize volatile regions, and manage alliances with both Gulf allies and rivals. As the Gulf states deepen ties with China, the US must navigate this reconfigured regional landscape while balancing its long-standing influence and strategic interests in the Middle East. The region stands at a crossroads, where Trump’s foreign policy choices will determine the trajectory of US-Middle East relations for years to come.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

   This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 19 Nov, 24

2. Asian Age, BD : 19 Nov, 24

3. Weekly blitz, BD : 18 Nov, 24

4. Daily Times, Pak : 19 Nov, 24

5. Good Morning Kashmir, India: 20 Nov,24

6. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 20 Nov, 24

7. The Province, Pak : 19 Nov, 24

ট্রাম্পের দ্বিতীয় মেয়াদে মার্কিন-মধ্যপ্রাচ্য সম্পর্ক

এম এ হোসাইন,

ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্প যখন মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের ৪৭তম প্রেসিডেন্ট হিসেবে পুনঃনির্বাচিত হয়েছেন, তখন মধ্যপ্রাচ্যের নেতারা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক আরও গভীর করার জন্য নতুন উদ্যম দেখাচ্ছেন। এই প্রতিক্রিয়া আঞ্চলিক কর্মকর্তাদের মধ্যে ট্রাম্পের নীতির পূর্বানুমানযোগ্যতাকে পছন্দ করার একটি দৃষ্টান্তকে তুলে ধরে, যা বাইডেন প্রশাসনের সঙ্গে সম্পর্কের টানাপোড়েনের বিপরীতে কাজ করবে। জো বাইডেনের মেয়াদ মধ্যপ্রাচ্যের সংঘাত এবং জোটের নিস্ক্রিয়তা দ্বারা চিহ্নিত হলেও, ট্রাম্পের প্রত্যাবর্তন এই অঞ্চলে আরও পরিচিত ঐতিহাসিক মার্কিন নীতির প্রত্যাশা নিয়ে আসবে বলে অনুমান করা হচ্ছে।

প্রেসিডেন্ট বাইডেনের মেয়াদে মধ্যপ্রাচ্যে গাজা এবং লেবাননের যুদ্ধ থেকে শুরু করে আন্তর্জাতিক শিপিং লেনে বাধা দেওয়া ইরান-সমর্থিত মিলিশিয়াদের সক্রিয়তা পর্যন্ত অসংখ্য  সংঘাত প্রত্যক্ষ করা গেছে। বাইডেনের প্রথম দিকের পদক্ষেপগুলো, যেমন উপসাগরীয় মিত্রদের কাছে অস্ত্র বিক্রি বন্ধ করা এবং ঐতিহ্যবাহী অংশীদারদের সঙ্গে মার্কিন সম্পর্ক পুনর্মূল্যায়ন করা, সৌদি আরব এবং সংযুক্ত আরব আমিরাতের মতো দেশগুলোর সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক তৎক্ষণাৎ উত্তেজনাপূর্ণ করে তোলে। উদাহরণস্বরূপ, বাইডেনের ইয়েমেনের হুথি বিদ্রোহীদের সন্ত্রাসী তালিকা থেকে অপসারণ করার সিদ্ধান্ত এবং পরে তাদের পুনরায় তালিকাভুক্ত করা সমালোচিত হয়েছিল, কারণ হুথিরা তখনও রেড সি এবং তার বাইরেও জাহাজে আক্রমণ চালিয়ে যাচ্ছিল।

এই নীতিগুলো অনেক উপসাগরীয় দেশের মধ্যে মার্কিন নিরাপত্তা প্রতিশ্রুতি সম্পর্কে প্রশ্ন তৈরি করেছিল, বিশেষ করে ২০২১ সালে আফগানিস্তান থেকে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের আকস্মিক প্রত্যাহারের পর। বাইডেনের এই টানাপোড়েন মেরামত করার প্রচেষ্টা বিভিন্ন চ্যালেঞ্জের দ্বারা ছাপিয়ে গিয়েছিল, যার মধ্যে ইসরাইল-হিজবুল্লাহ সংঘাত এবং অন্যান্য চলমান আঞ্চলিক উত্তেজনা উল্লেখযোগ্য।

উপসাগরীয় নেতাদের জন্য, ট্রাম্পের প্রত্যাবর্তন তার প্রথম মেয়াদে লালিত ইতিবাচক সম্পর্ক পুনরুজ্জীবিত করার একটি সুযোগ নির্দেশ করে। ট্রাম্পের অবস্থান ইসরায়েলের প্রধানমন্ত্রী বেঞ্জামিন নেতানিয়াহুকে চলমান গাজা এবং লেবানন সংঘাতের সমাধান খুঁজে বের করার জন্য কূটনৈতিক চাপের সৃষ্টি করবে। ট্রাম্পের ২০১৭ সালে সৌদি আরবকে তার প্রথম সরকারি বিদেশ সফরের গন্তব্য হিসেবে বেছে নেওয়া এবং ইরানের প্রভাবের বিরুদ্ধে তার দৃঢ় অবস্থান উপসাগরীয় নেতাদের মধ্যে একটি স্থায়ী ছাপ রেখে গেছে।

সংযুক্ত আরব আমিরাতের প্রেসিডেন্ট শেখ মোহাম্মদ বিন জায়েদ মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সঙ্গে সমৃদ্ধি ও স্থিতিশীলতা নিয়ে চলমান সহযোগিতার আশা প্রকাশ করেছেন। তিনি ইসরায়েল, সংযুক্ত আরব আমিরাত, বাহরাইন, মরক্কো এবং সুদানের মধ্যে শান্তি চুক্তি সম্পাদনের জন্য আব্রাহাম চুক্তির অধীনে দুই দেশের ঐতিহাসিক সামঞ্জস্যকে জোর দিয়েছেন।

ইসরায়েল-ফিলিস্তিন শান্তি প্রক্রিয়া এখনও একটি বড় চ্যালেঞ্জ। বাইডেন সৌদি আরব ও ইসরায়েলের মধ্যে সম্পর্ক স্বাভাবিক করতে চেষ্টা করলেও, ২০২৩ সালের অক্টোবরে হামাসের ইসরায়েলে হামলা এবং এর পরবর্তী গাজায় সংঘটিত ধ্বংসযজ্ঞে এই প্রচেষ্টা ব্যাহত হয়। গাজা এবং পশ্চিম তীরে ইসরায়েলের কঠোর নীতিগুলো আরব দেশগুলোর সঙ্গে সম্পর্ককে আরও জটিল করেছে। সংযুক্ত আরব আমিরাত, মিসর এবং জর্ডানের মতো দেশগুলো ইসরায়েলের কর্মকাণ্ড এবং মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের আপাত নিষ্ক্রিয়তার বিষয়ে অসন্তোষ প্রকাশ করেছে।

নেতানিয়াহুর সরকারের উগ্র ডানপন্থী শরিকরা শান্তি প্রক্রিয়াকে আরও জটিল করে তুলেছে, যা সৌদি আরবের সঙ্গে কূটনৈতিক সম্পর্ক স্থাপনের পূর্বশর্ত হিসেবে দুই রাষ্ট্রভিত্তিক সমাধানকে বাধাগ্রস্ত করছে। তবে, ট্রাম্প পূর্বে নেতানিয়াহুকে গাজা সংঘাত সমাধানের জন্য আহ্বান জানিয়েছিলেন এবং লেবাননে শান্তি আলোচনা পরিচালনার পরিকল্পনার ইঙ্গিত দিয়েছিলেন। বিশ্লেষকদের মতে, ট্রাম্পের প্রভাব নেতানিয়াহুকে এই অঞ্চলের যুদ্ধ শেষ করার দিকে মনোযোগী করতে উৎসাহিত করতে পারে, যাতে মার্কিন-ইসরায়েল সম্পর্ক ঝুঁকির মধ্যে না পড়ে।

ট্রাম্পের দ্বিতীয় মেয়াদে উপসাগরীয় দেশগুলো চীনের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক আরও শক্তিশালী করার সম্ভাবনা রয়েছে। এটি মার্কিন নিরাপত্তা নিশ্চয়তার সীমাবদ্ধতার প্রতিক্রিয়ায় একটি পরিবর্তনের প্রতিফলন। উপসাগরীয় অঞ্চলে চীনের প্রভাব বিশেষভাবে বেড়েছে, বিশেষ করে ২০২৩ সালে সৌদি আরব এবং ইরানের মধ্যে ঐতিহাসিক পুনর্মিলন ঘটানোর পর। এটি সরাসরি সংঘাত হ্রাস এবং আঞ্চলিক স্থিতিশীলতা বৃদ্ধি করেছে। এটি ট্রাম্পের প্রথম মেয়াদে উচ্চ-উত্তেজনার সময় থেকে একটি পরিবর্তন নির্দেশ করে, যখন ইরানি বাহিনী সৌদির তেল অবকাঠামোতে হামলা চালায় এবং বাইডেনের শাসনামলে হুথিরা আবুধাবিকে লক্ষ্য করে আক্রমণ চালিয়েছিল। উভয় ক্ষেত্রেই মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের চূড়ান্ত প্রতিক্রিয়ার অভাব উপসাগরীয় দেশগুলোকে তাদের অংশীদারিত্ব বহুমাত্রিক করার জন্য উৎসাহিত করেছিল।

চীনের দিকে এই ঝোঁক ঐতিহ্যবাহী মার্কিন-উপসাগরীয় নিরাপত্তা ব্যবস্থার থেকে  সরে আসার ইঙ্গিত দেয়, যেখানে উপসাগরীয় দেশগুলো জ্বালানি সম্পদে প্রবেশাধিকার প্রদান করত এবং এর বিনিময়ে মার্কিন সামরিক সুরক্ষা পেত। বর্তমানে উপসাগরীয় দেশগুলো আঞ্চলিক নিরাপত্তা হুমকিগুলো মোকাবিলার জন্য চীনের সঙ্গে আরও বিস্তৃত নিরাপত্তা এবং অর্থনৈতিক অংশীদারিত্বের সন্ধান করছে।

লেবানন-ইসরায়েল সংঘাত ট্রাম্প প্রশাসনের জন্য একটি কঠিন চ্যালেঞ্জ হিসেবে আবির্ভূত হয়েছে। লেবাননে স্থিতিশীলতা আনার জন্য ট্রাম্পের লক্ষ্য হলো একটি জটিল পরিবেশের মধ্য দিয়ে কাজ করা, যেখানে লেবাননের অর্থনৈতিক পতন, অকার্যকর শাসনব্যবস্থা, এবং ইসরায়েলি হস্তক্ষেপ দ্বারা উসকে দেওয়া রাজনৈতিক উত্তেজনা বিদ্যমান। লেবাননের নেতারা, যাদের মধ্যে হিজবুল্লাহ এবং হিজবুল্লাহ বিরোধী গোষ্ঠীগুলো রয়েছে, সতর্কভাবে আশাবাদী যে ট্রাম্প প্রশাসন দীর্ঘায়িত সংঘাতের পরিবর্তে শান্তি প্রচেষ্টায় মনোনিবেশ করবে। আরব-আমেরিকানদের মধ্যে ট্রাম্পের সমর্থন, যা তার মেয়ের শ্বশুর ম্যাসাদ বুলোসের মাধ্যমে গড়ে উঠেছে। এই সমর্থন লেবাননে শান্তি এবং স্থিতিশীলতার প্রতি প্রতিশ্রুতির ইঙ্গিত দেয়।

তাছাড়া, ট্রাম্প বাইডেনের ইরাক চুক্তি উত্তরাধিকার সূত্রে গ্রহণ করবেন, যা আইএসআইএসের বিরুদ্ধে লড়াই শেষ করার জন্য আন্তর্জাতিক জোটের প্রত্যাহারের পরিকল্পনা রয়েছে। যদিও ট্রাম্প পূর্বে মধ্যপ্রাচ্যে মার্কিন সামরিক উপস্থিতি হ্রাস করার ইচ্ছা প্রকাশ করেছিলেন, তবে পেন্টাগনের প্রাক্তন কর্মকর্তা ডানা স্ট্রোলসহ বিশেষজ্ঞরা সতর্ক করেছেন যে একটি তাড়াহুড়ো করে প্রত্যাহার সিরিয়া এবং ইরাকে আইএসআইএস বিরোধী কার্যক্রম ব্যাহত করতে পারে। সম্প্রতি মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র এই প্রচেষ্টা বাড়িয়েছে, যা আইএসআইএসের বিদ্যমান হুমকির প্রতি ইঙ্গিত করে।

ট্রাম্প সম্ভবত সিরিয়ার আসাদ সরকারের সঙ্গে আলোচনার নতুন প্রচেষ্টা শুরু করবেন, যা আমেরিকান বন্দীদের মুক্তি নিশ্চিত করতে পারে, যদিও আসাদের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক স্বাভাবিক করা মার্কিন আইনের অধীনে নিষিদ্ধ। তবে আসাদ সরকারের সঙ্গে ব্যবস্থা নিয়ে আলোচনার জন্য ট্রাম্পের ইচ্ছা, যা লেবাননে ইরানের প্রভাব হ্রাস এবং ক্যাপটাগন পাচার সীমিত করতে পারে। এই পদক্ষেপের ফলে সিরিয়া সম্পর্কে ট্রাম্পের একটি বাস্তবসম্মত দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিকে প্রতিফলিত করে। আরব লীগ সম্প্রতি আসাদের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক স্বাভাবিক করায় এই অঞ্চলের মনোভাবের পরিবর্তনকে তুলে ধরেছে, যদিও ট্রাম্প এই সম্পর্কগুলো ইরানের অস্থিতিশীল প্রভাব মোকাবিলার জন্য কাজে লাগাতে পারেন।

ট্রাম্প তার দ্বিতীয় মেয়াদ শুরু করার সঙ্গে, মধ্যপ্রাচ্যের নেতারা  তার প্রশাসনের দিকে এক ধরনের আশাবাদ এবং সতর্কতামূলক পন্থার মিশ্র অনুভূতি নিয়ে তাকিয়ে আছে। উপসাগরীয় দেশগুলো ট্রাম্পের প্রথম মেয়াদের দৃঢ় মৈত্রী পুনরুদ্ধারে আগ্রহী, তবে লেবানন, ইরাক এবং সিরিয়ার মতো দেশগুলো জটিল বাধার কথাও মনে করিয়ে দেয়। ট্রাম্পের "আমেরিকা ফার্স্ট" কৌশল, যা জাতীয় স্বার্থকে অগ্রাধিকার দেয় এবং মধ্যপ্রাচ্যে দীর্ঘস্থায়ী হস্তক্ষেপ এড়িয়ে চলার নীতিমালাটি তার দীর্ঘমেয়াদী বৈদেশিক নীতির একটি প্রধান দিক।

তবে, ট্রাম্পের সাফল্য নির্ভর করবে তার পক্ষে শান্তি চুক্তি নিশ্চিত করা, সংঘাতপূর্ণ অঞ্চলে স্থিতিশীলতা আনয়ন, উপসাগরীয় মিত্র এবং প্রতিদ্বন্দ্বীদের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক পরিচালনার দক্ষতার উপর। উপসাগরীয় দেশগুলো চীনের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক গভীর করার সময়, মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রকে এই পুনর্গঠিত আঞ্চলিক প্রেক্ষাপটে তার দীর্ঘস্থায়ী প্রভাব এবং কৌশলগত স্বার্থের ভারসাম্য বজায় রাখতে হবে। এই অঞ্চলটি এমন এক সন্ধিক্ষণে দাঁড়িয়েছে যেখানে ট্রাম্পের পররাষ্ট্রনীতির সিদ্ধান্ত পরবর্তী কয়েক বছরের জন্য মার্কিন-মধ্যপ্রাচ্য সম্পর্কের গতিপথ নির্ধারণ করবে।

লেখক একজন রাজনৈতিক ও নিরাপত্তা বিশ্লেষক। 

This article published at :

1. দৈনিক সংবাদ, বাংলাদেশ : ১৭ নভেম্বর, ২৪

Under Trump's Presidency, Delhi May Replace London

M A Hossain,                        

Since the end of second world war, the United Kingdom has been regarded as America’s “little brother”, a close ally through the Cold War and beyond, with shared interests and a strong transatlantic alliance. However, with the rise of new geopolitical tensions and a shift in economic power toward Asia, the Trump administration has shown signs of moving its focus from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region. In this new landscape, New Delhi has emerged as a crucial ally for the United States, particularly in terms of countering China’s influence and establishing a balance of power in Asia. As a result, India and its Prime Minister Narendra Modi are now at the forefront of America’s foreign policy, poised to receive significant backing from Washington as Trump’s administration moves to secure American interests in this increasingly vital part of the world.

Donald Trump’s foreign policy in 2017 already hinted at his interest in a more assertive Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), deviating from the previous administration’s European-centric approach. While maintaining traditional ties with NATO, Trump prioritized building alliances in Asia, motivated by his focus on countering China’s economic expansion and geopolitical influence. Unlike previous American leaders, Trump’s stance was clear and uncompromising—China was not only a competitor but a threat to US dominance, both economically and militarily.

One unique factor in Trump’s policy shift is his personal rapport with Modi. The two leaders share an ideological affinity, particularly in their approach to nationalism and economic self-reliance. Trump's administration would see numerous influential positions occupied by individuals of Indian descent, further strengthening this South Asian alliance. India’s geographic and economic significance, coupled with the Bay of Bengal’s vast mineral wealth, provides a strategic advantage for the US in exerting influence across the region. By aligning more closely with India, Trump sought to establish a powerful counterbalance to China in the Indian Ocean and beyond.

Trump’s “America First” policy fundamentally reshaped US foreign policy to emphasize domestic economic interests. The Indo-Pacific region, through which around 70% of global trade flows, became crucial to this agenda. As a key player in securing international sea lanes, India emerged as a valuable ally for the United States. With a strong naval presence in the Indian Ocean, India will be the US's main partner of its influence in the region to counter a massive Chinese military presence in South China Sea and Indian Ocean. 

Under Trump, this partnership with India was expected to deepen, as Washington increasingly viewed New Delhi as a vital anchor for security and stability in Asia. Trump’s second term would likely be more assertive than his previous “soft” approach, with increased American support for India in military and strategic sectors. For both countries, this partnership holds the potential to act as a substantial deterrent to China’s geopolitical ambitions and solidify the US-India alliance as a cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific strategy.

Trump’s reelection, however, would create ripples in the South Asian political landscape, particularly for Bangladesh. While some analysts claim that a second Trump presidency would have minimal impact on Dhaka-Washington relations, there are clear indications that such assumptions could be grossly wrong.

In 2016, a meeting between Trump and a group of Bangladeshi-Americans hinted at his sharp memory of Bangladesh’s political dynamics. Trump’s awareness of Muhammad Yunus, one of the top donors of the Hillary’s family enterprise - Clinton Foundation, reflects his scrutiny of those aligned with his political opponents. Given his longstanding feud with the Clintons, Obama, and George Soros, Trump may view any entity associated with them with suspicion or hostility. According to some media reports, Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton also are involved with Yunus’s business ventures such as ‘Grameen America’.

This ideological stance could have direct consequences for Bangladesh, particularly if Trump decides to impose economic penalties. In 2017, he placed several nations on a trade blacklist; a similar move against Bangladesh, involving punitive tariffs on exports, could severely impact its economy, particularly the ready-made garment (RMG) sector, which is vital to the country’s financial stability. Trump's motivations would likely involve fostering a pro-American government in Dhaka, with Modi playing a role in shaping Bangladesh’s political future. This could open avenues for joint Indo-US ventures in Bangladesh, possibly even enabling American companies to facilitate energy projects connecting Nepal’s hydropower resources through India to Bangladesh.

Under the Biden administration, the US demonstrated a consistent commitment to providing humanitarian assistance to Bangladesh, particularly in support of the Rohingya crisis. Trump, on the other hand, may adopt a different stance, prioritizing economic goals over humanitarian aid. Trump’s rigid stance on immigration and skepticism towards international humanitarian efforts may also impact the future of the Rohingya crisis, as Yunus’ aspirations for relocating the refugees to third countries may receive no support from a Trump administration and certainly not to the US. 

Additionally, nationalist Hindu lobbyists have been vocal in shaping Trump's perceptions of political and religious landscape in Bangladesh. If Trump were to be influenced by these narratives, his administration could adopt a critical stance towards the Bangladeshi government regarding religious freedom.

Trump’s administration may also seek to forge alliances with non-state actors like the Arakan Army in Myanmar, potentially enabling support for the creation of a Christian state in the South Asian region. Such developments could have destabilizing consequences for Bangladesh, potentially drawing it deeper into the complex interplay of regional politics and US strategic interests.

As the global geopolitical landscape shifts, so too does America’s focus, with the Indo-Pacific region taking on newfound importance in the US foreign policy. Trump’s presidency marked a clear realignment from a Europe-centric approach to one that positions South Asia, particularly India, as a critical partner. While the UK has long been America’s “little brother”, Trump’s pivot towards Asia signals that this role may be passed on to India. Modi’s leadership aligns well with Trump’s nationalist priorities, fostering a bond based on mutual interest and strategic alignment. In the context of balancing China’s growing power, India’s position as an emerging superpower and key regional player grants its unprecedented influence in Washington’s strategic calculations.

The US-India relationship, characterized by both military collaboration and economic synergy, is a powerful counterweight to China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. Trump’s policies have set the stage for a new chapter in US-South Asia relations, where India is not only a friend but a partner in safeguarding stability and promoting mutual prosperity across the region. For these reasons, New Delhi appears poised to replace London as America’s preferred ally, underscoring the significance of the Indo-Pacific region in today’s geopolitical landscape.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

  This article published at :

1. Weekly blitz, BD : 09 Nov, 24

2. South Asia Monitor, India : 12 Nov, 24

3. Daily Excelsior, J & K: 14 Nov, 24

Only Indians See 'Hindutva Conquest'

M A Hossain,

The outcome of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election, which saw Donald Trump reclaim the White House, has ignited worldwide conversations and speculations. While American politics often creates ripple effects that touch on international affairs, this particular victory has led to unique interpretations among various communities—especially within the Indian media. For some in India, Trump’s win is perceived not only as the return of his distinct policies but also as a triumph for Indian Americans. However, this view is largely a media narrative. In reality, deeper geopolitical issues and shifts in U.S. domestic concerns significantly influenced the outcome of the 2024 election.

Since Trump’s victory, Indian mainstream media has been awash with commentary, speculation, and a wave of perceived optimism. Numerous media outlets in India have portrayed Trump’s return as advantageous to Indian interests, even painting it as a symbolic victory for Hindu nationalism. Influential Indian media voices, particularly those aligned with or sympathetic to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), suggest that Trump’s second term could forge stronger Indo-U.S. relations, potentially positioning the U.S. as a strategic ally in countering China and containing regional adversaries such as Pakistan. However, Indian media may be amplifying the perception of influence and significance, perhaps beyond what the reality entails.

The Indian media’s narrative frames Trump’s victory as aligning with Hindu nationalist ideals, fueled by his apparent closeness to the BJP government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This perception is bolstered by media stories that emphasize the growing contributions of Indian-Americans in U.S. society and politics, with some even suggesting that these figures may carry sway in Trump’s administration. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that not all Indian-Americans align with Hindu nationalism or the ideologies of Hindutva.

There is also a perception in some parts of Indian media that Trump’s victory represents a form of political validation for those who support Hindutva ideologies. According to these voices, Trump’s policies may benefit India strategically, economically, and ideologically. The media narrative has amplified this view, though it may be grounded more in aspiration than in policy reality.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election saw Indian-origin voters and Arab-Muslim voters both emerge as influential demographic groups, each with distinct political leanings and priorities. According to estimates, around 2.6 million eligible voters in the U.S. are of Indian background, while Arab and Muslim voters collectively represent approximately 3.5 million of the total 160 million voters.

In the American context, Arabs and Muslims represent a diverse coalition, connected by shared cultural and social concerns, yet distinct from one another. This group includes individuals from various religious backgrounds, with a significant number of American Arabs being Christian rather than Muslim. This distinction is important, as Arab and Muslim Americans face unique and evolving concerns that often extend beyond ethnic and religious lines.

Arab and Muslim voters, who previously leaned toward Biden in 2020 due to Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and Middle Eastern policies, shifted their political stance in 2024. This demographic, including disillusioned Arab-Americans and others affected by recent foreign policy decisions, voiced their disapproval of Biden's approach to issues such as the Gaza conflict. Many in these communities turned toward Trump and independent candidate Jill Stein, who both campaigned on promises to address ongoing Middle East conflicts more assertively. This shift reflects the nuanced ways these groups have responded to U.S. foreign policy, revealing their influence in shaping electoral outcomes.

In the 2020 election, Arab and Muslim Americans had largely supported Joe Biden, motivated by dissatisfaction with Trump’s past remarks on Muslims and his policies affecting the Middle East. However, Biden’s approach to the Gaza conflict, along with a perceived lack of substantial progress on crucial issues, led to a significant shift in 2024. Throughout Biden’s term, criticism mounted from various quarters as his administration struggled to deliver on several promises related to Middle Eastern diplomacy and domestic policies impacting the Muslim community.

A nationwide sentiment grew against the Biden-Harris administration's stance on the Gaza-Israel conflict, particularly among younger generations of Arab and Muslim Americans who were critical of what they saw as ineffective diplomacy and unchecked spending. For these voters, Trump’s promises to bring “endless wars” to a close resonated deeply, offering a compelling alternative to what they perceived as an outdated Biden's foreign policy strategy. Additionally, Stein’s platform, which emphasized non-intervention and fair diplomacy, added to the appeal for those disillusioned with the Biden's  stance.

Trump’s rhetoric about ending “endless wars” has struck a chord with these communities, who are eager for a less interventionist approach. His administration, now in its second term, is likely to pursue policies that emphasize stability over direct intervention—a stance that both Arab and Muslim Americans hope will lead to meaningful diplomatic progress in the region.

As Trump takes office for his second term, his foreign policy strategy in South Asia is expected to shift in ways that might be more assertive than during his first presidency. Trump’s history of adopting unconventional strategies to outmaneuver political opponents and enact policies that overturn those of his predecessors suggests that his approach this time will be no different. With a new mandate, Trump could take steps to influence governance and leadership in South Asian nations, particularly in those with Democrat-leaning governments. In Pakistan, for instance, there is speculation that Trump might support the return of Imran Khan to power. Meanwhile, Bangladesh’s Chief Adviser of the interim government, Prof. Muhammad Yunus, could face challenges due to his closeness with the Democratic Party in the USA.

While Indian-American voters are believed to have played a significant role in Trump’s election win, it’s noteworthy that the support for Trump is not uniformly bipartisan. The major opposition party in India has shown a stronger affinity toward the Democratic Party, creating a nuanced and divided response to Trump’s return. Trump’s commitment to re-evaluate alliances and prioritize ending prolonged conflicts was a decisive factor in his 2024 win, especially among Arab and Muslim voters who were pivotal in tipping the scales away from Democrats and toward other candidates.

Trump’s return to the White House has created a mix of optimism, concern, and speculation among world leaders. For supporters of Hindu nationalist ideologies and Indian media circles that favor stronger Indo-U.S. ties, there is a sense of expectation that Trump’s policies will lean toward bolstering India’s position and confronting its adversaries. Yet, this perception is not universally shared, nor does it necessarily reflect Trump’s official stance on South Asia. For Indian media, this moment is interpreted as an opportunity, though the practical implications remain to be seen.

As Trump’s administration unfolds, the world will be closely watching to see if these anticipated changes in policy come to pass. The Indian media’s framing of Trump’s return as a "Hindutva conquest" may be an exaggeration, but it reflects the global impact of U.S. politics on diverse communities. For now, communities around the world—whether from India, the Middle East, or elsewhere—are interpreting Trump’s return through lenses that align with their own interests, aspirations, and worldviews.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

 This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 12 Nov, 24

2. Pakistan Observer, Pak : 12 Nov, 24

The Greatest Comeback

M A Hossain, 

In an unprecedented and historic victory, Donald J. Trump clinched enough electoral votes in the early hours of Wednesday to reclaim the U.S. presidency as the 47th president. The former president’s comeback from a series of legal and political setbacks to a triumphant return to the White House has been nothing short of remarkable, setting a new standard for political comebacks in modern American history.

As he addressed his supporters from Florida around 2:30 a.m. ET, Trump described his journey as the "greatest political movement of all time" and pledged to “heal the nation” while promising sweeping changes for the country. "We’ve overcome obstacles no one thought possible," he stated, adding that his return marks a new chapter for America, one that he promised would bring a "golden age" of prosperity.

Unlike his first campaign, Trump’s strategy this time was not focused solely on energizing his base but rather on broadening the Republican map. Through targeted appeals to young men, minority voters, and others feeling neglected by the political system, he aimed to expand his support base beyond his loyal followers. His approach avoided the mainstream media, opting instead for appearances on popular podcasts and leveraging high-profile influencers to connect with younger, more diverse audiences who had largely turned away from traditional news outlets.

This strategy was particularly effective in key battleground states where Trump significantly outperformed his 2020 results. In contrast, his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, struggled to capture the momentum that President Joe Biden had in 2020, particularly among crucial voting demographics, including Latinos and white men. Trump's unconventional approach and his ability to tap into these new demographics proved to be the deciding factor in his political comeback.

As election night wore on, the results began to show that Trump's high-stakes strategy was yielding positive outcomes. His campaign had been outspent by Harris’s $1 billion war chest, which funded one of the most extensive ground operations in modern U.S. politics. But Trump's unconventional methods helped him tap into a deep reservoir of discontent among voters who felt sidelined in recent years. His targeted campaign, focusing on economic issues and a vision for a stronger America, proved highly effective.

Alongside his presidential win, Trump’s victory brought with it a Republican resurgence in the Senate, setting the stage for a smoother path for his administration. With the Senate majority, Trump's nominees for the cabinet and judiciary are expected to face little resistance, allowing him to rapidly implement his policy goals. The House results were still undecided as of early Wednesday, but Republicans remained optimistic about their chances.

While the economy had faced challenges over recent years, including inflation and recessionary fears, signs of recovery emerged late in Biden’s term. Trump seized upon this as an opportunity, promising to steer the economy towards sustained growth. As financial markets responded to the election with optimism, the Federal Reserve was already considering lowering interest rates, bolstering the post-election outlook.

Trump's legal challenges, which once loomed as severe obstacles to his political aspirations, have now largely dissipated in their political impact. Many of these cases have been either dismissed or rendered politically moot in the wake of his win. For Trump, this victory not only redeems his previous presidency but also grants him four more years to make a lasting impact on American governance and the Republican Party’s ideological direction.

Despite the sweeping victory, Trump’s return to office does not come with a broad mandate. His campaign may have demonstrated strong appeal in many areas, but his polarizing reputation remains a challenge for bridging divides within the American public. Many will watch closely to see if he interprets his victory as a mandate for change or as an opportunity to reinforce his previous policies.

Trump faces a different political landscape compared to his first term, with bipartisan support likely more elusive. His policies and governing approach will need to resonate with both his loyal base and a broader swath of Americans, some of whom may still hold reservations about his leadership style and previous controversies.

As Trump prepares for his return to the White House, he faces a cautionary lesson from his predecessor. President Biden entered office with a promise to unify the country and serve as a bridge to a new generation of leadership. However, his approval ratings declined over time, weighed down by an economy that struggled with post-pandemic inflation and divided opinions on policy issues.

Biden's decision to run for a second term, despite calls from some within his own party to step aside, placed additional pressure on his administration and may have impacted his and Harris's appeal in the election. Biden’s leadership, while praised for its steady hand during uncertain times, left many voters looking for a change, which Trump capitalized on with his promises of a revitalized economy and a stronger America.

Donald Trump’s second term offers him a rare chance to redefine his legacy. Historically, only one other president—Grover Cleveland—has returned to office after a nonconsecutive term. For Trump, this opportunity means more than just a return to power; it’s a chance to cement himself as a transformative figure within the Republican Party and to shape the direction of U.S. policy for years to come.

As he takes on the role of president once more, he will need to confront the challenges that come with a deeply divided country. He has promised to “heal the nation” and to prioritize policies that benefit all Americans, yet whether he can navigate these challenges remains to be seen.

Trump’s reentry into the White House could mark a pivotal moment in American history, potentially altering the course of national and international policy. As January 6 approaches, when Congress will certify his victory—a date symbolic given the events of 2025—Trump’s supporters eagerly anticipate a new era of prosperity under his leadership. For them, Trump’s triumph is not just a political win but a validation of their faith in his vision for America.

As he prepares for his inauguration, Donald Trump stands poised to lead a country in search of stability and growth. His victory, fueled by a powerful coalition of diverse supporters and an unorthodox campaign, showcases the unpredictability of American politics and the enduring influence of a leader who defied all odds to reclaim the presidency.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

  This article published at : 

1. The Nation, Pak : 07 Nov, 24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD : 07 Nov, 24

3. Good Morning Kashmir, J&K: 08 Nov, 24

4. Asian Age, BD : 09 Nov, 24

US Policy Under Trump or Harris

M A Hossain,

As the United States approaches its 2025 presidential inauguration, the potential impact on US foreign policy is under close examination, particularly concerning the Global South. The countries in these regions—spanning across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia—face unique challenges and opportunities based on whether the next US president will be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The candidates’ distinct approaches to international relations, trade, security, and diplomacy will shape the Global South's future in numerous ways.

A Trump administration would likely return to a more protectionist economic stance, with substantial tariffs potentially imposed on imports, particularly from China, and possibly affecting goods from other countries as well. This shift could disrupt trade relations for several countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America that heavily rely on exports to the US Industries such as textiles, electronics, and agriculture, which serve as crucial economic pillars in these regions, could face significant challenges due to supply chain disruptions and reduced US demand. This outcome might lead to a slowdown in economic growth, a reduction in job opportunities, and increased economic volatility.

Conversely, Kamala Harris is expected to uphold many of the Biden administration’s “Worker-Centric” trade policies that emphasize collaboration, multilateralism, and targeted sanctions rather than sweeping tariffs. Harris would likely support initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, promoting economic engagement with nations in the Global South. This approach could offer more stability and help Global South countries maintain trade partnerships with the US, reducing the risks of sudden disruptions that a Trump presidency might bring.

The ongoing US-China rivalry is a central issue for many nations in the Global South, particularly in Southeast Asia, where countries often try to balance their economic relations with China and security ties with the US. A Trump presidency is expected to intensify pressure on these countries to align more closely with the US in its competition with China. Trump's confrontational approach to China would make it harder for Southeast Asian nations to maintain a balanced stance, potentially leading to greater geopolitical instability in the region.

Harris, on the other hand, would likely pursue a competitive stance toward China but through a consultative, less confrontational approach. Her policy would give Global South nations more flexibility to navigate the US-China rivalry without needing to choose one side. This balanced approach could benefit countries like India, the Philippines, and other nations in the Indo-Pacific region, allowing them to engage with both superpowers on their terms while leveraging their strategic importance in the region.

A Trump presidency is likely to emphasize a transactional approach to security alliances, as seen during his previous term, where he pressed allies like Japan and South Korea for greater financial contributions. A similar stance could reduce US security commitments to countries in the Global South, which might prompt these nations to strengthen their defense capabilities independently. For instance, South Korea has considered enhancing its nuclear capabilities as a countermeasure if US support declines. Trump would stop all US military engagement globally, especially in Ukraine and Israel. In regions like North Atlantic Nations,  Southeast Asia and Africa, Trump’s approach could mean reduced US security assistance, prompting countries to seek new security partnerships or reassess their defense strategies.

In contrast, Harris’s administration would likely continue to support security alliances, following the Biden administration's approach of bolstering alliances through cooperation. Her approach would prioritize stability, especially in sensitive regions like the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, offering countries in the Global South a more predictable security relationship with the US. For Africa and Latin America, Harris’s administration could continue supporting counterterrorism, anti-narcotics operations, and defense collaborations, ensuring that US military engagement in these areas remains robust.

The influence of US soft power in the Global South would diverge depending on which candidate takes office. Trump's blunt and at times isolationist approach has previously undermined trust among global leaders, reducing the US's diplomatic reach in some areas. Many leaders in the Global South may be wary of aligning too closely with a Trump-led US due to his tendency to withdraw from international institutions and agreements. Although some authoritarian regimes might appreciate Trump’s less interventionist stance, others could view his approach as too unpredictable, potentially straining diplomatic ties.

A Harris administration would likely prioritize multilateral diplomacy, particularly on issues like climate change, which disproportionately affect countries in the Global South. By engaging with these nations on global challenges, Harris could strengthen diplomatic ties and reinforce US influence through a more inclusive approach. This multilateral approach could be attractive to Global South countries, which would benefit from participating in international platforms that address shared issues and promote stability.

Under Trump, India and the Philippines might deepen their ties with the US, though their relations would hinge on different factors. Trump’s rapport with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could strengthen the bilateral relationship, while Southeast Asian countries might face more economic challenges due to potential tariffs. A Harris presidency, however, could offer a more structured diplomatic route, potentially benefiting India due to Harris's South Asian heritage. Southeast Asian nations may find Harris’s policies more predictable, allowing them to continue diversifying trade partnerships without severe disruptions.

Trump’s policies on immigration could strain diplomatic ties in Latin America, while economic disruptions from potential tariffs might push countries in the region to seek alternative trade partners or bolster regional alliances. Harris’s approach would likely emphasize sustainable development initiatives, infrastructure investment, and climate action, aligning well with Latin American priorities. Her policies could encourage economic cooperation focused on social and environmental goals, strengthening the region’s resilience.

In the Middle East, Trump’s strong alliances with countries like Israel could lead to policies that prioritize US allies, potentially increasing punitive measures against Iran. The abandonment of multilateral diplomacy could stop conflicts and Trump would exert political pressure for Two State solution. Harris, on the other hand, would likely adopt a more balanced approach, fostering conflict while supporting US alliances. For Africa, Harris’s presidency could continue anti-terrorism initiatives, supporting security partnerships that contribute to stability in the region. Her focus on diplomatic engagement and development assistance would likely strengthen ties with African nations, facilitating the US defense industrial complex to profit.

The global economic landscape could shift significantly depending on the outcome of the US presidential election. Trump’s protectionist policies and tariffs could destabilize international trade, particularly affecting export-driven economies in the Global South. Although such disruptions might encourage countries to innovate and diversify their supply chains, they could also dampen economic growth, especially in regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America.

A Harris presidency would probably focus on initiatives that promote the digital economy and environmental sustainability, benefiting Global South countries investing in green technology and digital infrastructure. Her administration might pursue trade agreements centered on critical minerals, technology, and sustainable development, supporting the long-term growth of nations focusing on green infrastructure.

The impact of the 2025 US  presidential election on the Global South will depend heavily on whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris becomes president. A Trump administration might create a more transactional, unpredictable environment, with aggressive economic protectionism and intensified US-China competition likely causing disruptions. This scenario could strain alliances and heighten diplomatic challenges for the Global South.

On the other hand, Harris’s approach would offer a more predictable and consultative framework, allowing Global South nations to engage with the US without needing to make drastic adjustments. Her focus on multilateral diplomacy and environmental initiatives could foster stability, creating opportunities for economic growth and resilient partnerships. However, the conflict-ridden nations will be pushed towards more volatile situations by Harris's administration. 

In anticipation of these potential shifts, countries in the Global South may seek new partnerships, prioritize stability-oriented policies, and weigh the costs and benefits of engagement with the US, striving for adaptability and resilience in an increasingly polarized world.

   This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 05 Nov, 24

2. Daily Asian Age, BD : 05 Nov,24

3. The Arabian Post, UAE : 04 Nov, 24

4. Weekly Blitz, BD : 04 Nov, 24

5. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 05 Nov, 24

No Let-up in Gaza War

M A Hossain, 

The ongoing violence in Gaza has reached an alarming peak, with 93 more lives lost in the latest Israeli airstrikes. This brings the death toll past 43,000, a tragic number mostly comprising civilians and children, making it one of the deadliest periods in the region’s history. Each day, Gaza witnesses unimaginable destruction, and the relentless nature of these attacks has made such violence almost routine. What is most disheartening, however, is the apparent indifference of much of the global community to the suffering unfolding in Palestine. 

The conflict’s reach has now expanded beyond Gaza, with military engagements extending into Lebanon, raising fears that Iran could soon be drawn into the conflict. As the situation becomes increasingly dire, the United Nations has issued a grave warning, signaling that the Middle East is facing its most dangerous moment in decades. The UN’s special coordinator for Middle East peace noted that the war in Gaza and its spillover into other parts of the region risk severe escalation, potentially triggering a crisis of unparalleled scale. Despite these dire warnings, the world appears unwilling to intervene decisively. Not only has the US-led Western bloc remained silent, but major global powers on other continents have also done little to deescalate the conflict. 

In an effort to stem the violence, the United Nations passed a resolution in March, which saw 14 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council voting in favor of an immediate ceasefire and peace process. This resolution was a powerful call for humanity and the cessation of hostilities that have devastated the region. It underscored the urgent need to protect innocent lives, especially the most vulnerable, from the perils of war. But the impact of this resolution has been negligible, as Israel continues to ignore international calls for peace, escalating its actions instead. 

With its intensified focus now on Lebanon, Israel has in recent weeks launched a series of military operations aimed at targeting Hezbollah. These attacks have resulted not only in numerous civilian deaths but also in the assassination of key leaders within Hezbollah, including Hassan Nasrallah, and two prominent Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar. Israel’s actions in Lebanon are seen as a bid to crush any opposition in the region, leaving behind a trail of destruction that only adds to the suffering of countless civilians already affected by years of instability.

In a bid to mediate the escalating crisis, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a diplomatic visit to the region, hoping to push for a ceasefire. This visit marked yet another attempt in a series of US-led efforts to negotiate peace, but these initiatives have so far failed to bring any significant changes on the ground. Israel has flatly rejected all such attempts, making it clear that it would only accept a ceasefire if Hamas and Hezbollah surrendered completely. These uncompromising terms have rendered diplomatic efforts largely ineffective, signaling a grim reality: the conflict is likely to persist, with no end in sight.

The situation has now reached a tipping point where the continuation of Israeli strikes and counterattacks from Hezbollah risk dragging the entire region into a large-scale confrontation. If left unchecked, this escalation could have catastrophic consequences not just for the Middle East but for the world. The situation is becoming increasingly volatile, and any further escalation could result in a war of devastating proportions. This risk is precisely why the international community must take urgent, concrete steps to put an end to the hostilities. A prolonged conflict would not only devastate the lives of millions in the region but also trigger an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, affecting neighboring countries and beyond. 

While there has been some public condemnation from Western leaders, urging Israel to exercise restraint, these statements have been largely symbolic. The reality is that many of these same nations continue to support Israel militarily and financially, enabling it to carry out its military operations with little fear of repercussion. The contrast between their words and actions underscores a disturbing double standard in international diplomacy. Despite the escalating crisis, major global powers have yet to take meaningful action to address the root causes of the conflict or hold Israel accountable for the humanitarian toll in Gaza and Lebanon. This passive stance is contributing to an environment where violence can flourish unchecked, and civilians remain caught in the crossfire.

The need for a coordinated global response is more urgent than ever. Without serious intervention from world leaders, the prospect of peace will remain elusive. The current state of affairs demands more than just diplomatic platitudes; it requires decisive, collective action. World powers must move beyond hollow statements and take tangible steps to pressure all parties involved to cease hostilities and engage in a dialogue for lasting peace. Failure to act will only embolden further aggression, creating an endless cycle of violence and retribution. 

It is crucial to recognize that the consequences of inaction are not limited to the immediate region. The Middle East sits at a critical geopolitical crossroads, and an escalation of violence could destabilize neighboring nations, disrupt global energy supplies, and spark refugee crises that affect countries around the world. The human cost is already staggering, and allowing the conflict to continue unchecked could lead to consequences that reverberate globally. 

Moreover, the continuing violence undermines the international community’s ability to address other pressing global issues, such as climate change, economic inequality, and public health crises. As resources are diverted to manage the fallout from this conflict, less attention and funding are available for initiatives that could benefit humanity as a whole. The longer this conflict persists, the more challenging it will become to focus on these broader goals, creating a vicious cycle that further entrenches global inequality and suffering.

In this context, the role of the United Nations and other international organizations becomes paramount. The UN must reinforce its efforts to broker a ceasefire and push for humanitarian corridors that allow for the safe passage of civilians and essential aid. Additionally, regional powers must be encouraged to play a constructive role in de-escalating tensions. Diplomatic channels with both Israel and its adversaries should be opened and maintained, with an emphasis on achieving a sustainable peace that addresses the grievances on all sides.

Ultimately, the situation in Gaza and the surrounding region is a stark reminder of the cost of ignoring the principles of justice and human rights. The international community must rise to the occasion, demonstrating that it values human life above geopolitical interests. It is only through a genuine commitment to peace and justice that the cycle of violence can be broken. A peaceful resolution will require difficult compromises, but the alternative—a protracted, expanding conflict—is far worse.

Time is running out. If the world continues to stand by, the opportunity to prevent further devastation may soon slip away. The international community must act now to support a peaceful, negotiated end to the hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon. The price of inaction is too high, and the cost will ultimately be borne not only by the people of Gaza but by the world at large. It is a choice between acting in the interest of humanity or allowing the region to spiral further into chaos. The choice is clear, and the time to act is now.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

   This article published at : 

1. Daily Observer, BD : 02 Nov, 24

2. Newage, BD : 03 Nov, 24

3. Pakistan Today, Pak : 03 Nov, 24

4. The Nation, Pak : 16 Nov, 24