Russia Targets 'Unfriendly' States’ Assets

M A Hossain,

The Russian government is reportedly drafting new legislation that will allow it to seize assets belonging to Western states and their citizens in retaliation for the unlawful confiscation of Russian funds and property abroad. The initiative was disclosed by the Izvestia newspaper on January 21, citing official documents prepared by the government legislation commission. If passed, this law would mark a significant escalation in the economic standoff between Russia and Western nations following the freezing of Russian assets amid the Ukraine conflict.

According to the draft bill, which has been included in the agenda of the government’s legislation commission, assets owned by Western states deemed “unfriendly” and associated individuals could be transferred into Russian state ownership. The process will be overseen by a court of arbitration and executed based on recommendations from Russia’s commission on foreign investments. This body will compile a list of properties and funds subject to potential confiscation.

The legislation aims to serve as a countermeasure against what Moscow views as illegal asset freezes and confiscations by Western nations. Since the onset of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the United States and its allies have imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia, freezing approximately $300 billion of Russian sovereign assets held in international financial institutions such as Brussels-based Euroclear.

The draft law, reportedly prepared by the Ministry of Justice, has received approval from several key government bodies, including the Bank of Russia, the Finance Ministry, the Economy Ministry, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Vedomosti newspaper noted that the draft was added to the legislation commission’s agenda on January 20 and could be reviewed as early as next week.

The initiative follows a decree signed (Decree No. 422) by Russian President Vladimir Putin in May 2023, which laid the groundwork for seizing assets of US companies and individuals as compensation for Russian properties expropriated by Western nations. The proposed legislation expands this framework, enabling broader measures against “unfriendly” states and individuals linked to such actions.

Western nations, led by the United States, have frozen billions of dollars in Russian assets as part of sanctions aimed at crippling Moscow’s ability to finance its military operations in Ukraine. The frozen funds include state reserves, private assets, and commercial properties. Ukraine has repeatedly urged its Western allies to confiscate these assets and redirect them to support its military and post-war reconstruction efforts.

The Biden administration has expressed support for such measures, while some European nations have raised concerns about the legal and economic repercussions. Critics argue that expropriating Russian sovereign assets would set a dangerous precedent and undermine trust in the Western financial system, particularly the euro. European nations have so far resisted fully endorsing the idea, opting instead to explore alternative measures, such as imposing windfall taxes on profits generated by the frozen Russian funds.

The Kremlin has consistently denounced the freezing of its assets as outright “theft” and accused Western nations of violating international law. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has warned of legal consequences for any nation or entity involved in seizing Russian property. Moscow views these measures as part of a broader strategy by the West to weaken Russia economically and politically.

The proposed legislation to confiscate Western assets is a direct response to what Moscow perceives as economic aggression. By taking reciprocal action, Russia aims to deter further attempts by Western nations to target its sovereign wealth and private holdings.

If adopted, this legislation could significantly impact relations between Russia and Western nations. The law would provide Moscow with a legal framework to seize properties, financial assets, and investments owned by Western entities, creating a tit-for-tat dynamic that could exacerbate tensions. Such measures would likely deter foreign investment in Russia, further isolating the country economically.

At the same time, the move could embolden other nations facing sanctions to adopt similar measures, thereby destabilizing international financial norms. The global financial system relies heavily on trust and the sanctity of private property, and any erosion of these principles could have far-reaching consequences.

While the United States has been vocal about supporting the confiscation of Russian assets, European nations remain cautious. Legal experts have warned that seizing state-owned assets could face significant legal hurdles and may violate international conventions protecting sovereign immunity. There is also concern that such actions could set a precedent, enabling other countries to confiscate Western assets in retaliation for perceived injustices.

For example, imposing a windfall tax on profits generated by frozen Russian assets-a measure currently under consideration by Western allies-is viewed as a less controversial approach. These funds could be used to finance loans or directly purchase weapons for Ukraine. However, even this approach has faced criticism for potentially undermining property rights and the stability of financial markets.

Beyond asset seizures, Russia has implemented various measures to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions. These include redirecting trade to non-Western partners, increasing domestic production of critical goods, and leveraging its vast energy resources to secure new markets in Asia and the Middle East. While these efforts have softened the blow of sanctions, the long-term effects on Russia’s economy remain uncertain.

The proposed legislation to seize Western assets is part of this broader strategy to push back against Western economic pressure. By targeting assets owned by “unfriendly” states, Moscow aims to shift some of the financial burden onto its adversaries.

The introduction of this legislation could further escalate the economic conflict between Russia and the West. As both sides engage in retaliatory measures, the likelihood of a resolution diminishes. The standoff over frozen assets has already strained diplomatic relations and hindered efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.

Moreover, the potential for legal battles over asset confiscation adds another layer of complexity. Nations targeted by Russia’s legislation are likely to challenge these actions in international courts, prolonging the conflict and creating additional uncertainty for global markets.

Russia’s draft legislation to seize Western assets marks a significant escalation in its economic confrontation with the West. Framed as a response to the “theft” of its own assets, the proposed law reflects Moscow’s determination to counter what it views as illegal and unjust actions by Western nations.

While the legislation is still under review, its adoption could have far-reaching implications for international relations, economic stability, and the global financial system. By challenging the sanctity of property rights, both Russia and its Western adversaries risk undermining the very foundations of the international economic order.

As the standoff continues, the stakes for both sides remain high. For Russia, the legislation represents an opportunity to assert its sovereignty and retaliate against perceived injustices. For the West, it serves as a reminder of the risks inherent in weaponizing economic tools in geopolitical conflicts. The coming weeks will reveal whether Moscow proceeds with this bold move and how the international community responds.

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

   This article published at :

1. Pakistan Today, Pak :26 Jan, 25

2. Weekly Blitz, BD : 23 Jan, 25

The Future of U.S. Aid in Bangladesh

M A Hossain, 

The recent decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to suspend foreign aid for 90 days, announced on the very night of his second-term inauguration, has sent shockwaves across the globe. For countries like Bangladesh, where U.S. assistance plays a pivotal role in development efforts, this move poses significant concerns. Stakeholders, development partners, and analysts are now grappling with the potential fallout, not just for Bangladesh, but for global stability and progress.

Since Bangladesh’s independence, the United States has been a critical development partner, contributing to sectors like food security, health, governance, education, and environmental sustainability. According to USAID, Bangladesh hosts one of the largest U.S. development programs in Asia, underscoring its strategic importance in South Asia.

In recent years, U.S. aid has played a transformative role in addressing the Rohingya crisis, which has burdened Bangladesh with the care of nearly one million refugees. With over $2.5 billion in humanitarian assistance since 2017, the U.S. has been the largest donor to this cause. This aid has not only supported Rohingya refugees but also benefitted host communities in Cox’s Bazar, a region facing immense socio-economic strain.

Beyond humanitarian assistance, U.S. aid fuels critical development projects. In 2023 alone, Bangladesh received $490 million from the U.S., supporting initiatives across various sectors. This aid is indispensable for a country aiming to transition to upper-middle-income status by 2031.

The executive order directing the suspension of U.S. foreign aid marks a seismic shift in American foreign policy. According to the White House, this reassessment aims to ensure that U.S. foreign aid aligns with national interests, prioritizing safety, strength, and prosperity for Americans.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio encapsulated this approach by asking, “Does it make the U.S. safer? Does it make the U.S. stronger? Does it make the U.S. more prosperous?” The implication is clear: aid programs that fail to directly benefit the U.S. could face cuts or termination.

This marks a departure from the traditional view of foreign aid as a tool for global stability, poverty alleviation, and diplomatic goodwill. Instead, it places U.S. interests above multilateral or humanitarian considerations, signaling a retreat from global leadership.

Bangladesh, like many other aid-dependent nations, stands at a crossroads. The suspension of U.S. aid raises immediate concerns about the fate of ongoing projects and the future of critical programs. For instance, how will the Rohingya crisis be managed without sustained U.S. support? Who will fill the vacuum if U.S. funding is curtailed?

Furthermore, the U.S. decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) adds another layer of uncertainty. The WHO has been a vital partner in combating health challenges in Bangladesh, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Reduced funding for the organization could weaken its capacity to support developing countries, leaving Bangladesh vulnerable to public health crises.

The broader implications are equally troubling. U.S. aid has been instrumental in fostering democracy, promoting gender equality, and enhancing climate resilience in Bangladesh. Any disruption to these programs could derail progress and undermine the country’s development trajectory.

The suspension of U.S. aid is not just a Bangladesh issue; it’s a global one. For decades, the United States has been the largest provider of foreign aid, using its resources to address global challenges, from poverty to pandemics. This leadership role has helped maintain a semblance of balance in an increasingly fragmented world.

However, the shift in U.S. policy threatens to upend this dynamic. Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that rely heavily on U.S. assistance could face severe setbacks. The potential weakening of multilateral institutions like the WHO could exacerbate global inequalities, leaving vulnerable populations without access to essential services.

Moreover, the U.S. decision could embolden other nations to adopt a similarly insular approach, undermining international cooperation. In an era where global challenges—climate change, pandemics, and migration—require collective action, the withdrawal of U.S. leadership could have dire consequences.

President Trump’s executive order is rooted in the argument that U.S. aid programs must align with American interests. While this is a legitimate consideration, it’s worth questioning whether such a narrow definition of “interest” serves the U.S. or the world in the long run.

Foreign aid is not merely an act of altruism; it’s a strategic investment. By addressing poverty, instability, and crises abroad, the U.S. reduces the risk of conflicts, migration, and security threats that could spill over into its borders. In regions like South Asia, where geopolitical tensions run high, U.S. aid plays a stabilizing role, fostering goodwill and strengthening alliances.

For Bangladesh, the U.S. has been more than just a donor—it has been a partner in progress. This partnership is built on shared interests, from economic growth to regional stability. It would be shortsighted to undermine these gains in the name of immediate national benefits.

In the face of uncertainty, Bangladesh must adopt a proactive approach. First, it should engage in diplomatic efforts to emphasize the mutual benefits of continued U.S. aid. Highlighting Bangladesh’s strategic importance as a partner in South Asia could help secure support for critical programs.

Second, Bangladesh should diversify its sources of aid and investment. While the U.S. remains a key partner, relying solely on one donor is risky. Strengthening ties with other nations and multilateral organizations can provide a buffer against potential aid cuts.

Finally, Bangladesh must accelerate efforts to achieve self-reliance. By fostering economic growth, improving governance, and investing in human capital, the country can reduce its dependence on foreign aid and chart its own course toward prosperity.

The suspension of U.S. aid is a wake-up call for Bangladesh and the world. It underscores the need to rethink development strategies, prioritize self-reliance, and foster international cooperation.

At the same time, the U.S. must recognize that its global leadership role comes with responsibilities. By prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability, it risks losing the trust and goodwill of its partners. In an interconnected world, true strength lies not in isolation, but in collaboration.

For Bangladesh, the path ahead is fraught with challenges. But with resilience, innovation, and strategic diplomacy, it can navigate this uncertain terrain and continue its journey toward a brighter future.

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

This article published at :

1. New Age, BD : 26 Jan, 25

2. Weekly Blitz, BD : 25 Jan, 25

3. The Daily Guardian, India: 28 Jan, 25

   

Trudeau’s fall and conservatism’s rise in 2025

M A Hossain,

Less than a week into 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, often dubbed the “Crown Prince of Woke Politics,” announced his resignation-a development poised to reshape Canada’s political future just ten months before the country’s general election. This surprising decision marks the end of Trudeau’s nine-year tenure as a divisive figure in Canadian and global politics.

Trudeau, the eldest son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, ascended to power in 2015 by presenting himself as a progressive icon. His vision for Canada as the “first postnational state” with “no core identity” and “shared values” captured the imaginations of many on the left. Trudeau’s administration championed issues such as climate change, gender equality, and multiculturalism. However, his lofty promises often contrasted sharply with the realities of his governance.

For instance, Trudeau pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, despite the economic significance of Canada’s oil and gas industry. He also promised to plant two billion trees, a target many critics deemed impractical given Canada’s vast and frigid landscapes. His insistence on maintaining a “gender-equal” cabinet and his push for a “gender-sensitive” budget reflected his commitment to inclusivity but also drew criticism for prioritizing optics over substance.

However, Trudeau’s image as an inclusive leader was marred by controversies. His infamous visit to India in 2018, where he and his family wore traditional Indian attire, became a source of international ridicule. Moreover, photos of Trudeau in blackface and brownface emerged, casting a long shadow over his self-professed commitment to racial and gender equality. Allegations of misconduct, including a 2018 groping accusation by a journalist, further tarnished his reputation.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a more authoritarian side of Trudeau’s leadership. In early 2022, when Canadian truckers staged peaceful protests against his stringent COVID-19 restrictions, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history. This move granted the government extraordinary powers to suppress dissent. Police deployed pepper spray and stun grenades, while the government froze protesters’ bank accounts and seized crowdfunding donations. A federal court later ruled these actions “unreasonable” and a violation of fundamental freedoms, but the damage to Trudeau’s democratic credentials was already done.

Canada’s economy has struggled under Trudeau’s leadership. Paul Beaudry, a former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, warned that Canadians are poorer compared to their peers in developed nations. Between 2002 and 2022, Canada’s GDP per capita fell from 80% of US GDP per capita to just 72%. Despite a population surge of 3.2% in 2023, largely due to immigration, the economy grew by a mere 1.1%. This imbalance has strained public services like healthcare and housing.

In response, Trudeau announced a reduction in immigration targets last fall, aiming to “pause” population growth to allow governments to “catch up.” However, this move was widely seen as too little, too late. Adding to Trudeau’s woes, US President-elect Donald Trump’s threat of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports created further political and economic anxiety. Trump’s demand for stricter measures against drug and human trafficking and his flippant remark about Canada potentially becoming the 51st US state further humiliated Trudeau on the global stage.

The final blow came when Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s finance minister and longtime ally, resigned in December over disagreements on how to safeguard Canada’s economy from Trump’s tariff threat. With his popularity at an all-time low and even members of his own Liberal Party calling for his resignation, Trudeau announced his decision to step down on January 6, 2025.

Trudeau’s resignation signals a broader political shift across Western democracies. In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party faces mounting challenges. Like Canada, Britain struggles with immigration backlash and a faltering economy. A recent survey described the British economy as heading for “the worst of all worlds.” Meanwhile, Starmer’s government has been criticized for imprisoning citizens over “hateful” social media posts while ignoring a decades-long scandal involving the systemic rape of thousands of young British girls, primarily in Labour-controlled areas. This issue has gained renewed attention following tweets by Elon Musk, further eroding Starmer’s credibility.

In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s governing coalition collapsed last year due to economic mismanagement. With annual growth stagnating at 0.2% over the past five years and soaring energy costs driven by climate policies, Scholz’s leadership faced growing scrutiny. The rise of the anti-immigration Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party and his failure to win a confidence vote in December have led to early elections scheduled for February 2025.

The political decline of Trudeau, Starmer, and Scholz reflects what some analysts are calling the “Trump effect.” Trump’s decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris has reinvigorated conservative movements across Western democracies. His election has shattered the perception of leftist dominance and inspired voters and political parties to challenge progressive agendas at the ballot box.

Trump’s influence extends beyond his domestic policies. His unapologetic stance on issues like immigration, national sovereignty, and economic revitalization resonates with disillusioned voters in Canada, the UK, Germany, and beyond. Even before taking office, Trump’s victory has reshaped the global political landscape, emboldening conservatives and signaling the potential for significant policy shifts in 2025.

The year 2025 marks a turning point for Western democracies. The downfall of leftist leaders like Trudeau, Starmer, and Scholz reflects a growing dissatisfaction with policies perceived as prioritizing social engineering over economic stability and public safety. Issues such as rising crime rates, soaring energy costs, and strained public services have fueled this discontent.

As voters demand practical solutions, the era of symbolic gestures and progressive platitudes appears to be waning. The political resurgence of conservative movements offers a chance for Western democracies to address their pressing challenges and chart a new course. Whether this shift will lead to meaningful reform or merely a change in rhetoric remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: 2025 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for the future of Western civilization.

This article published at :

1. Minute Mirror, Pak : 24 Jan, 25

2. Weekly Blitz, BD : 21 Jan, 25

A Fresh Look Won’t Mask a Flawed Force

M A Hossain,

In a country where governance is undergoing significant scrutiny, the interim government is led by Dr. Yunus, has prioritized a symbolic overhaul rather than addressing systemic issues. The recent decision to change the uniforms of the Bangladesh Police, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), and Ansar reflects a misguided effort to erase the stains of past abuses. While new uniforms might provide an outward sense of change, they do little to solve the underlying problems of institutional inefficiency, corruption, and public distrust. Reform is desperately needed—but reform that tackles the core issues, not one that relies on cosmetic fixes.

The announcement of new uniforms for Bangladesh’s law enforcement agencies was framed as a step toward rebuilding trust and fostering a new identity. However, this approach overlooks the fundamental issues plaguing these forces. For years, the police, RAB, and Ansar have been perceived as tools of political oppression, particularly under the Awami League government. The organizations have become symbols of fear, representing unchecked authority, extrajudicial killings, and suppression of dissent.

But a new uniform cannot erase history. It cannot address years of misuse, nor can it absolve the police of their role in perpetuating systemic injustices. Instead, the focus should be on fixing the institutional failures that have allowed such abuses to thrive. True reform requires a change in behavior, mindset, and accountability mechanisms—not just attire.

The decision to change uniforms for approximately 2.14 lakh police, 5,000 RAB members, and over 68,000 Ansar personnel comes at a steep financial cost. In a country grappling with an economic crisis, this move raises legitimate concerns about misplaced priorities. Instead of spending on uniforms, these funds could be invested in modernizing training, improving investigative tools, and fostering a culture of accountability. Sometime it indicates the economic interest of vested quarters.

Moreover, giving RAB a new uniform at a time when its very existence is under scrutiny seems like an attempt to distract from deeper issues. Can a change in color and design erase public distrust or the stigma associated with past operations? The answer is clear: no. True reform requires addressing systemic corruption, abuse of power, and the lack of transparency within these institutions.

Accountability is the cornerstone of effective governance. Yet, the timing of this uniform change raises questions about the interim government’s priorities. A focus on real reform would involve implementing mechanisms that make law enforcement accountable to the people they serve. For instance, the establishment of an independent oversight body to investigate police misconduct could be a transformative step.

Currently, the absence of such mechanisms allows a culture of impunity to persist. The Police Reform Commission has already proposed several measures, including strengthening internal accountability systems and promoting community-oriented policing. These proposals should be prioritized and acted upon, rather than sidelined in favor of superficial changes.

Changing uniforms does nothing to address the heavy-handed tactics still employed by law enforcement. Recent incidents, such as the use of water cannons, sound grenades, and batons against Indigenous rights activists, demonstrate that the mindset within the police remains unchanged. Public trust cannot be restored through cosmetic measures; it requires a demonstrated commitment to upholding human rights and the rule of law.

The government must explain why such tactics are still being used and take immediate steps to reform the culture of violence within the police. Uniforms may symbolize a shift, but actions speak louder than appearances.

A fundamental aspect of police reform involves limiting the use of lethal force and ensuring adherence to established rules and regulations. While the Police Reform Commission has proposed several measures, including de-escalation training and stricter guidelines on the use of force, these recommendations remain largely unimplemented.

The focus should be on creating a culture where law enforcement prioritizes the safety and rights of citizens. Without this shift, any attempt at reform will be superficial and ineffective.

The deficits in democratic policing in Bangladesh are glaring. Law enforcement agencies often operate with a top-down, authoritarian approach, serving the interests of political elites rather than the public. This dysfunction not only undermines public trust but also jeopardizes public safety.

Democratic policing involves accountability, transparency, and a commitment to protecting citizens' rights. To achieve this, the government must review and implement the proposals of the Police Reform Commission, establish independent oversight mechanisms, and ensure that police officers are adequately trained to serve as protectors, not oppressors.

A functional and trustworthy police force is essential for maintaining law and order. However, continued dysfunction within the force—exacerbated by corruption, political interference, and inadequate training—poses a serious risk to public safety.

Restoring the full capacity of the police requires more than a change in uniform. It demands a comprehensive approach to reform, including the enactment of a new Police Act, modernized training programs, and stricter accountability measures. Only then can the police truly serve as guardians of public security.

For police reform to be substantive, it must address the root causes of dysfunction within the force. This includes tackling corruption, ensuring impartiality in investigations, and promoting a culture of professionalism and integrity.

The enactment of a new Police Act should be the first step in this process. This legislation must prioritize the rights of citizens, establish clear accountability mechanisms, and provide a framework for democratic policing. Additionally, the government must foster a coalition of stakeholders—including civil society, human rights organizations, and law enforcement officials—to ensure that reform efforts are inclusive and effective.

The interim government must also prioritize addressing corruption within law enforcement agencies. Allegations of graft and misuse of power have eroded public trust in the police. Independent oversight bodies should be established to investigate such crimes impartially and hold offenders accountable. By focusing on rooting out corruption and promoting transparency, the police can begin to rebuild their reputation and restore public confidence.

The interim government’s decision to change the uniforms of law enforcement agencies is a distraction from the substantive reforms that are urgently needed. While the new attire might symbolize a fresh start, it does nothing to address the systemic issues of corruption, inefficiency, and public distrust.

True reform requires a comprehensive approach that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and the protection of citizens’ rights. By implementing the proposals of the Police Reform Commission, enacting a new Police Act, and establishing independent oversight mechanisms, the government can lay the foundation for a truly reformed and democratic police force. Anything less is a disservice to the people of Bangladesh.

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

   This article published at :

1. New Age, BD : 24 Jan,25

2. Asian Age, BD : 26 Jan, 25

3. Minute Mirror, Pak :25 Jan, 25

হামাস-ইসরায়েলের অস্ত্র বিরতি

এম. এ. হোসাইন,

হামাস এবং ইসরাইলের মধ্যে অস্ত্র বিরতি চুক্তি ঘোষণার ফলে দীর্ঘকালীন এবং বিধ্বংসী একটি সংঘর্ষ গুরুত্বপূর্ণ সন্ধিক্ষণে পৌঁছেছে। এই চুক্তিটি দীর্ঘ ১৫ মাসব্যাপী যুদ্ধের সমাপ্তির দিকে একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ পদক্ষেপ যা অসংখ্য মানুষের জীবন ধ্বংস করেছে এবং পুরো অঞ্চলকে ধ্বংসস্তুপে পরিণত করেছে। বিশ্বের সামনে যখন এই মুহূর্তটি উদ্ভাসিত হয়েছে তখন যুদ্ধের পরিণতি, পুনর্গঠনে চ্যালেঞ্জ এবং শান্তির সম্ভাবনা নিয়ে চিন্তা করার একটি সুযোগ সৃষ্টি করেছে। এই অস্ত্র বিরতি চুক্তিটি তার স্বল্প মেয়াদি এবং দীর্ঘমেয়াদি প্রভাবগুলো নিয়ে বিশ্ব মঞ্চে আলোচনার কেন্দ্রবিন্দুতে রয়েছে, যা মধ্যপ্রাচ্যে, মার্কিন রাজনীতিতে , এবং গাজা ও ফিলিস্তিনের ভবিষ্যৎকে প্রভাবিত করবে।

ইসরাইল এবং হামাসের মধ্যে অস্রবিরতি চুক্তিটি একটি জটিল পরিস্থিতিতে গৃহীত হয়েছে যার উদ্দেশ্য হলো দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে শত্রুতা বন্ধ করা এবং গাজায় মানবিক সঙ্কট মোকাবেলা করা। চুক্তিতে ৪২ দিনের লড়াই বন্ধ থাকার, ৩৩ জন বন্দীর মুক্তি এবং গাজায় মানবিক সাহায্যের পরিমাণ বৃদ্ধির কথা বলা হয়েছে। এটি দুই পক্ষের জন্য সাময়িক স্বস্তি নিয়ে আসলেও এটি কিন্তু পূর্ণাঙ্গ নয়। কারণ, দীর্ঘমেয়াদি শান্তি বা যুদ্ধ পরবর্তী পুনর্গঠনের জন্য কোনো গ্যারান্টি নেই।

মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট জো বাইডেনের প্রশাসনের অধীনে এবং সদ্য নির্বাচিত প্রেসিডেন্ট ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্পের সময়ে এটি কার্যকর হওয়ার জন্য চুক্তিটি আন্তর্জাতিক পরিমন্ডলে বেশ আলোচিত হয়েছে, যা আন্তর্জাতিক চাপ এবং অঞ্চলের পরিবর্তনশীল গতিপথকে প্রতিফলিত করে। বাইডেন এবং ট্রাম্প উভয়ই চুক্তির জন্য কৃতিত্ব দাবি করছেন, বাইডেন কূটনৈতিক প্রচেষ্টার উপর জোর দিচ্ছেন এবং ট্রাম্প শক্ত অবস্থান গ্রহণের কথা উল্লেখ করছেন। তবে, চুক্তির শর্তগুলি খুবই দূর্বল, এবং যদি কোন পক্ষ চুক্তির লঙ্ঘন বা প্রতিশ্রুতির অপূর্ণতা দেখে, তাতে সহিংসতা পুনরায় শুরু হতে পারে।

অস্ত্র বিরতি চুক্তিটি একটি সাময়িক স্বস্তি প্রদান করলেও বাস্তবে কিন্তু অঞ্চলটির গভীর ক্ষত এবং অমীমাংসিত উত্তেজনা নিয়ে সন্দেহ থেকেই যাচ্ছে। গাজার জন্য ধ্বংসের পরিমাণ বিরাট, হাজার হাজার প্রাণহানির সাথে পুরো অঞ্চল  ধ্বংস হয়ে গেছে এবং গুরুত্বপূর্ণ অবকাঠামো নিশ্চিহ্ন হয়ে গেছে। অপর দিকে, ইসরাইল যদিও আগের তুলনায় নিরাপদ তবুও এটি সামরিক হতাহতের ও নিরাপত্তার দিক থেকে বড় ক্ষতির সম্মুখীন হয়েছে।

যুদ্ধের অন্যতম ক্ষতিকর দিকটি হলো 'দ্বি-রাষ্ট্র' এর ভিত্তিতে সমাধানের সম্ভাবনাকে আরও সন্দেহজনক করে তুলেছে। অনেক আরব এবং ইউরোপীয় দেশ একটি সার্বভৌম ফিলিস্তিনি রাষ্ট্রের জন্য আহ্বানকে সংহত করছে এবং এই  যুদ্ধটিকে একটি সুযোগ হিসেবে দেখছে। তবে, ইসরাইলে, স্বাধীন ফিলিস্তিনের ধারণাটি কঠোর বিরোধিতার সম্মুখীন হচ্ছে কারণ অনেকেই আশঙ্কা করছেন যে এটি ৭ অক্টোবরের ন্যায় হামলার মতো আরও আক্রমণের সুযোগ করে দিতে পারে।

হামাস- ইসরায়েল যুদ্ধটি আঞ্চলিক শক্তির গতিশীলতাকেও পুনর্গঠন করেছে। হামাসের মূল মিত্র হিজবুল্লাহ ব্যাপকভাবে দুর্বল হয়ে পড়েছে এবং ১৯৭৯ সালের পর থেকে ইরানের প্রভাব অঞ্চলটিতে সর্বনিম্ন অবস্থানে পৌঁছেছে। এদিকে, লেবানন এবং সিরিয়া রাজনৈতিক পট পরিবর্তনের ফলে অঞ্চলটিতে এক নতুন মেরুকরণের ইঙ্গিত দেয়। তবে, গাজায় মানবিক সঙ্কট এবং পরবর্তী কী ঘটবে তা নিয়ে অনিশ্চয়তা এই পরিবর্তনগুলোকে ম্লান করে দিয়েছে। 

মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে, এই অস্ত্র বিরতি চুক্তিটি একটি বিরল উদাহরণ হিসেবে দেখা হচ্ছে যেখানে দুই দলেই চুক্তিটিকে সমর্থন করেছে। ডেমোক্র্যাট এবং রিপাবলিকান উভয়ই এর সাফল্যের জন্য কৃতিত্ব দাবি করছেন, যা মধ্যপ্রাচ্যের কূটনীতিতে তাদের স্বতন্ত্র পন্থা প্রতিফলিত করে। প্রেসিডেন্ট বাইডেনের জন্য, চুক্তিটি তার প্রশাসনের এই প্রতিশ্রুতি প্রতিফলিত করে যে, কূটনীতি এবং সামরিক সাহায্যের মাধ্যমেই কেবল অঞ্চলটিকে স্থিতিশীল করা সম্ভব। পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রী অ্যান্টনি ব্লিঙ্কেন মার্কিন ভূমিকাকে বিশেষভাবে তুলে ধরেছেন, যেখানে বৃহত্তর আঞ্চলিক যুদ্ধ রোধ এবং ইরানের মিত্রদের দুর্বল করা মূল লক্ষ্য ছিল।

অন্যদিকে, ডোনাল্ড ট্রাম্পের সমর্থকরা এই চুক্তির কৃতিত্ব ট্রাম্পের কঠোর কূটনীতিরই প্রতিফলন হিসেবে দেখছেন, যা চূড়ান্ত হুমকি এবং শক্তিশালী ভাষায় চিহ্নিত। তার দল "ট্রাম্প প্রভাব" এর ওপর জোর দিয়েছে, যা চুক্তির পেছনে চালিকা শক্তি হিসেবে কাজ করেছে। এমনকি প্রেসিডেন্ট হিসেবে দায়িত্ব নেওয়ার পূর্বেই এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ পররাষ্ট্র নীতির বিজয় হিসেবে তুলে ধরছে।

আভ্যন্তরীনভাবে, অস্ত্র বিরতি চুক্তিটি রাজনৈতিক প্রেক্ষাপটেও বেশ প্রভাব ফেলবে, কারণ উভয় দল নিজেদের শান্তি এবং নিরাপত্তার পক্ষে লড়াইকারী হিসেবে উপস্থাপন করছে। তবে, চুক্তিটির বাস্তবায়ন এবং এর দীর্ঘমেয়াদি ফলাফলগুলি সম্ভবত আগামী মাসগুলিতে জনমত এবং রাজনৈতিক পরিক্রমার গতিপথ নির্ধারন করবে।

যদিও অস্ত্র বিরতি চুক্তি একটি আশার আলো সঞ্চার করেছে তবে এর স্থায়ী শান্তির পথ এখনও চ্যালেঞ্জে পরিপূর্ণ। হামাস, যদিও দুর্বল হয়েছে, তবুও গাজায় একটি নির্দিষ্ট মাত্রায় তাদের নিয়ন্ত্রণ এবং প্রভাব বজায় রাখে। যুদ্ধ পরবর্তী গাজার কোনো স্পষ্ট শাসন কাঠামো অনুপস্থিতির কারণে সেই ক্ষমতার শূন্যস্থান পূরণে সশস্ত্র গোষ্ঠীগুলির পুনরুত্থানের সম্ভাবনা নিয়ে উদ্বেগ রয়েছে।

ইসরাইলের জন্য অগ্রাধিকার হল গাজাকে ভবিষ্যতের আক্রমণের জন্য একটি উর্বর ক্ষেত্র হতে না দেওয়া। তবে, এই লক্ষ্যটি, পুনর্গঠন এবং মানবিক সাহায্যের প্রয়োজনের সাথে বিরোধী, যা ফিলিস্তিনি কর্তৃপক্ষ এবং আন্তর্জাতিক সম্প্রদায়ের সাথে সহযোগিতা প্রয়োজন।

একটি বিস্তৃত শান্তি প্রক্রিয়ায় যার মধ্যে দ্বি-রাষ্ট্র সমাধানটি খুবই ক্ষীণ বলে মনে হচ্ছে। উভয় পক্ষই তাদের স্ব স্ব অবস্থানে বেশ কঠোর, এবং ব্যাপক অবিশ্বাস ও অমীমাংসিত অভিযোগে জর্জরিত। আন্তর্জাতিক সম্প্রদায়ের ভূমিকা এখানে অতি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ যা উভয় পক্ষের মধ্যে সংলাপের সহায়ক হবে, জবাবদিহিতা নিশ্চিত করবে এবং সংঘর্ষের মূল কারণগুলি চিহ্নিত করে সমাধান করতে পারবে। 

ফিলিস্তিনি জনগণের জন্য যুদ্ধের পরবর্তী সময়ে একটি কঠিন লড়াই অপেক্ষা করছে। গাজার পরিকাঠামো ধ্বংসস্তূপে পরিণত হয়েছে, এবং গাজাবাসীরা গৃহহীনতা, বেকারত্ব এবং মারাত্মক মানবিক সঙ্কটের সাথে মোকাবিলা করছে। পুনর্গঠন প্রচেষ্টা যদিও আন্তর্জাতিক সাহায্যের উপর নির্ভর করবে, তবে এই প্রচেষ্টা চলমান অবরোধ এবং হামাসের শাসন ব্যবস্থার রাজনৈতিক বাস্তবতার কারণে জটিল হয়ে উঠেছে। 

পশ্চিম তীরে ফিলিস্তিনি কর্তৃপক্ষও এক অনিশ্চিত অবস্থায় রয়েছে। তাদের কাছে রাজনৈতিক শক্তি, পুনর্নির্মাণ প্রচেষ্টা নেতৃত্ব দেওয়ার বা স্থায়ী শান্তি আলোচনায় সহায়তার জন্য উপযুক্ত নেতৃত্ব নেই। ফিলিস্তিনি গোষ্ঠীগুলির মধ্যে অভ্যন্তরীণ বিভাজন অগ্রগতিকে আরও বাধাগ্রস্ত করছে, যার ফলে জনগণ একটি ঐক্যবদ্ধ নেতৃত্ব এবং কৌশলহীন অবস্থায় রয়েছে।

এই যুদ্ধের মানসিক প্রভাব উপেক্ষা করা যায় না। প্রিয়জনের মৃত্যু, বাড়িঘরের ধ্বংস, এবং ভবিষ্যতের অনিশ্চয়তা ফিলিস্তিনি জনগণের উপর গভীর নেতিবাচক প্রভাব ফেলেছে। এই চ্যালেঞ্জগুলির মোকাবিলা করতে কেবল বস্তুগত সহায়তাই নয়, বরং শিক্ষা, স্বাস্থ্যসেবা এবং সম্প্রদায় পুনর্নির্মাণে দীর্ঘমেয়াদী বিনিয়োগ প্রয়োজন।

হামাস-ইসরায়েল যুদ্ধবিরতি অঞ্চলটির ইতিহাসে এক নিষ্ঠুর অধ্যায় শেষ করার দিকে একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ সন্ধিক্ষণ। যদিও এটি সাময়িক স্বস্তি প্রদান করবে এবং অপহৃতদের তাদের পরিবারদের সাথে পুনর্মিলনের একটি সুযোগ করে দিবে, তবে এটি সংঘাতের মূল সমস্যা গুলো নিরসনে কোনো কার্যকরী পদক্ষেপ নয়। মধ্যপ্রাচ্য এখনও গভীর বিভাজন, পরিবর্তনশীল জোট এবং অপ্রাপ্ত প্রতিশ্রুতির দৃশ্যপট।

মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের জন্য, যুদ্ধবিরতিতে মধ্যস্থতাকারী হিসেবে তার ভূমিকার জটিলতাগুলি তুলে ধরে এবং মধ্যপ্রাচ্যের ফলাফলগুলিতে প্রভাবিত করতে যে প্রয়োজনীয় রাজনৈতিক দৃঢ়তা প্রয়োজন তা সুস্পষ্ট করে। বাইডেন প্রশাসনের প্রচেষ্টা এবং আসন্ন ট্রাম্প প্রশাসনের দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি মার্কিন পররাষ্ট্রনীতির মধ্যে তাদের কৌশলের ভিন্নতাকেই প্রতিফলিত করেছে।

অবশেষে, গাজা ও ইসরায়েলের ভবিষ্যৎ নির্ভর করছে সকল পক্ষের উপর, যারা স্বল্পমেয়াদী সমাধানগুলি ছাড়িয়ে একটি ব্যাপক এবং স্থায়ী শান্তির দিকে কাজ করতে সক্ষম হবে। এর জন্য মানবিক সংকট মোকাবিলা, বিশ্বাস পুনর্নির্মাণ এবং এমন এক সংলাপের আয়োজন যা ইসরায়েলি এবং ফিলিস্তিনিদের উভয়ের অধিকার এবং আকাঙ্ক্ষাকে অগ্রাধিকার দেবে। কেবল তখনই অঞ্চলটি সহিংসতার চক্র ভেঙে একটি উজ্জ্বল ভবিষ্যতের জন্য পথ প্রশস্ত করতে পারবে।

লেখক : রাজনৈতিক ও নিরাপত্তা বিশ্লেষক। 

এই লেখাটি প্রকাশিত হয়েছে :

১. দৈনিক সংবাদ, বাংলাদেশ : ২০ জানু,২৫

The Indo-Pacific in Focus: Shaping Asia's Future Under Trump's 2.0

M A Hossain, 

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States on January 20, 2025, signals a pivotal moment for global geopolitics. With a renewed “America First” agenda, Trump’s administration is poised to reshape U.S. foreign and economic policies, particularly in Asia. The implications for the Indo-Pacific and South Asia are profound, spanning trade, security, and regional partnerships.

Central to Trump’s Asia policy is his determination to counter China’s growing influence. His administration’s hawkish appointments, such as Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, reflect this focus. Both are staunch critics of Beijing and emphasize the need for stronger U.S. alliances in Asia.

Rubio’s legislative efforts to sanction China for human rights abuses and security threats align with Trump’s vision of curbing Beijing’s dominance. Waltz advocates redirecting U.S. resources to counter China’s assertiveness, reinforcing military modernization and strategic cooperation with allies. This policy stance amplifies U.S. efforts to secure a free and open Indo-Pacific.

However, achieving these objectives requires balancing economic and security priorities. For instance, nations like Japan and South Korea face pressure to increase defense spending and adopt policies aligned with Trump’s strategic goals. Similarly, Southeast Asian nations such as Vietnam and the Philippines remain cautious, weighing the benefits of U.S. support against the risks of antagonizing China.

Trump’s second term will likely intensify his protectionist economic policies. His focus on tariffs, renegotiated trade agreements, and domestic manufacturing aligns with his broader vision of economic nationalism. The administration’s proposed 60% tariffs on Chinese imports and reciprocal trade levies highlight a confrontational stance.

For South Asia, these policies present both challenges and opportunities. Bangladesh, for example, risks significant losses in its ready-made garment (RMG) sector, which relies heavily on exports to the U.S. A 5% tariff increase on Bangladeshi goods could translate into nearly half a billion dollars in annual losses. India, while benefiting from its strategic role in the Indo-Pacific, also faces hurdles as tighter U.S. immigration policies impact remittance flows and student exchanges.

Trump’s approach could reshape global supply chains, encouraging manufacturers to relocate from China to alternative destinations like Vietnam, India, and Thailand. However, competition for foreign direct investment (FDI) remains fierce, with countries like Vietnam outperforming Bangladesh in infrastructure and regulatory efficiency.

Military modernization and alliance cohesion are critical components of Trump’s Asia strategy. By addressing inefficiencies in defense acquisition, the administration seeks to enhance U.S. military readiness and deter regional threats.

South Korea’s domestic political instability, exemplified by the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, poses a challenge for Washington. Balancing demands for increased defense contributions with support for South Korea’s democratic stability will require diplomatic finesse. Similarly, Japan faces pressure to align its defense policies with Trump’s vision, despite internal political hurdles.

In addition to bilateral ties, Trump’s emphasis on reforming multilateral institutions like the United Nations underscores his goal of strengthening U.S. influence. Proposals to grant permanent Security Council representation to allies such as Japan and Germany aim to dilute the power of adversaries like China and Russia while bolstering democratic alliances.

South Asia, home to nearly two billion people, stands at a crossroads as Trump’s policies reshape regional dynamics. India’s growing prominence within the QUAD strengthens its strategic position, but smaller economies like Bangladesh face vulnerabilities.

Bangladesh’s reliance on low-value-added RMG exports underscores the need for economic diversification. Promising sectors such as Information and Communication Technology(ICT), pharmaceuticals, and agro-processing offer opportunities for growth, but infrastructure deficiencies and regulatory inefficiencies hinder progress. For example, Bangladesh ranks 88th in logistics performance, far behind regional competitors like Vietnam and India.

Moreover, tighter U.S. immigration policies could reduce remittance inflows, a critical income source for South Asia. In 2023, Bangladesh received $2.6 billion in remittances from the U.S., comprising 15% of its total inflows. Proactive measures to strengthen ties with other migration-friendly nations, such as Canada and Australia, are essential to mitigate these risks.

Educational exchanges may also suffer under stricter U.S. visa policies. Over 200,000 South Asian students currently studying in the U.S. could opt for more welcoming destinations like Europe or Canada, further straining bilateral ties. Investing in local educational institutions and fostering international collaborations will be crucial to counterbalance these trends.

Trump’s policies highlight the importance of regional collaboration to address shared challenges. Bangladesh, for instance, must enhance cooperation through platforms like SAARC and ASEAN to safeguard its economic and strategic interests. Partnerships with nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia could help mitigate vulnerabilities and foster sustainable growth.

South Asia also needs innovative approaches to labor migration, ensuring equitable benefits for both origin and destination countries. Promoting fair migration policies and streamlining regulatory frameworks can enhance economic resilience in the face of global disruptions.

A critical aspect of U.S. success in Asia lies in its ability to engage local populations. Public diplomacy efforts, including leveraging media and influencers, can build trust and counter China’s narratives. Transparency about U.S. policies, particularly in countries like Japan where public opinion on U.S. military presence is mixed, is vital for sustaining alliances.

Similarly, proactive communication with South Asian stakeholders can foster a deeper understanding of U.S. actions and their benefits. Engaging regional leaders and communities in dialogue will strengthen partnerships and promote stability.

Donald Trump’s second term presents both opportunities and challenges for Asia. By prioritizing military modernization, economic decoupling, and alliance burden-sharing, the administration seeks to secure American interests and counter China’s influence. However, sustaining alliances and fostering regional cooperation will require balancing transactional demands with strategic engagement.

For South Asia, proactive measures are essential to navigate these shifts. Diversifying exports, improving infrastructure, and strengthening regional partnerships are critical to achieving sustainable growth. As the Indo-Pacific adapts to these changes, the ability to balance national priorities with collaborative efforts will determine the region’s future trajectory.

Ultimately, a transparent and inclusive approach to U.S.-Asia relations can redefine the geopolitical landscape, ensuring stability and prosperity in an increasingly competitive world.

This article published at :

1. Eurasia Review, USA : 19 Jan, 25

2. South Asia Journal, USA : 19 Jan, 25

3. Asian Age, BD : 20 Jan, 25

4. The Jakarta Post, Indonesia, 21 Jan, 25

5. The Nation, Pak : 21 Jan, 25

6. South Asia Monitor, India : 21 Jan, 25

7. The South Asian Times, USA : 25 Jan, 25

Ceasefire in Gaza: A Temporary Respite or a Prelude to Future Conflict?

M A Hossain,

The prolonged and devastating conflict between Hamas and Israel has reached a pivotal moment with the announcement of a ceasefire deal. This agreement marks a significant step toward ending a 15-month-long war that has left countless lives shattered and entire regions in ruins. As the world watches this moment unfold, the ceasefire provides an opportunity for reflection on the war's implications, the challenges of rebuilding, and the prospects for peace. This ceasefire agreement exposes its immediate and long-term impacts on the Middle East, the political implications in the United States, and the daunting future that lies ahead for Gaza and Palestine.

The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is a complex arrangement aimed at halting hostilities and addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The deal includes a 42-day cessation of fighting, the release of 33 hostages, and an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza. While it brings temporary relief to both sides, it is far from comprehensive, lacking guarantees for long-term peace or post-war reconstruction.

Negotiated under U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration and set to be implemented during President-elect Donald Trump’s term, the deal reflects significant international pressure and changing dynamics in the region. Both Biden and Trump claim credit for the agreement, with Biden emphasizing diplomatic efforts and Trump highlighting a hardline approach. However, the terms remain fragile, with potential risks of resumed violence if either side perceives breaches or unmet commitments.

The ceasefire offers a temporary respite but leaves the region grappling with deep scars and unresolved tensions. For Gaza, the destruction is monumental, with tens of thousands of lives lost, entire neighborhoods obliterated, and critical infrastructure decimated. Israel, though safer than before, has paid a heavy price with significant military casualties and heightened security concerns.

One of the most notable outcomes of the war is the widening rift over the prospect of a two-state solution. Many Arab and European nations have intensified calls for a sovereign Palestinian state, viewing the conflict as a turning point. However, in Israel, the idea of an independent Palestine faces staunch opposition, as many fear it could lead to more attacks akin to those on October 7, 2023.

The war has also reshaped regional power dynamics. Hezbollah, a key ally of Hamas, has been severely weakened, and Iran’s influence in the region is at its lowest since 1979. Meanwhile, Lebanon and Syria are witnessing political shifts, offering glimmers of hope for more stable governance. However, these changes are overshadowed by the immense humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the uncertainty of what comes next.

In the United States, the ceasefire agreement is a rare instance of bipartisan support. Both Democrats and Republicans are claiming credit for its success, reflecting their distinct approaches to Middle East diplomacy. For President Biden, the deal underscores his administration’s commitment to stabilizing the region through diplomacy and military aid. Secretary of State Antony Blinken highlighted the U.S. role in preventing a broader regional war and weakening Iran's proxies.

President-elect Trump, on the other hand, attributes the deal to his tough diplomacy, marked by ultimatums and strong rhetoric. His team has emphasized the "Trump effect" as a driving force behind the agreement, leveraging it as a key foreign policy victory even before taking office.

Domestically, the ceasefire may influence the political landscape as both parties position themselves as champions of peace and security. However, the deal’s implementation and its long-term outcomes will likely shape public opinion and political narratives in the coming months.

While the ceasefire offers a moment of hope, the path to lasting peace remains fraught with challenges. Hamas, though weakened, retains a degree of control and influence in Gaza. The absence of a clear governance structure in a post-war Gaza raises concerns about potential power vacuums or the resurgence of militant groups.

For Israel, the priority is ensuring that Gaza does not become a breeding ground for future attacks. However, this objective clashes with the need for reconstruction and humanitarian aid, which requires cooperation with Palestinian authorities and the international community.

A broader peace process, including discussions on a two-state solution, seems distant. Both sides remain entrenched in their positions, with deep mistrust and unresolved grievances. The international community’s role will be crucial in facilitating dialogue, ensuring accountability, and addressing the root causes of the conflict.

The Palestinian people face an uphill battle in the aftermath of the war. Gaza’s infrastructure is in ruins, and its population is left grappling with homelessness, unemployment, and a dire humanitarian crisis. Reconstruction efforts will depend on substantial international aid, but these efforts are complicated by the ongoing blockade and the political realities of Hamas’s governance.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is also in a precarious position, lacking the political clout or resources to lead reconstruction efforts or negotiate a lasting peace. Internal divisions among Palestinian factions further hinder progress, leaving the population without a unified voice or strategy.

The psychological toll of the war cannot be ignored. The loss of loved ones, the destruction of homes, and the uncertainty of the future have left deep scars on the Palestinian people. Addressing these challenges requires not only material aid but also long-term investments in education, healthcare, and community rebuilding.

The Hamas-Israel ceasefire is a significant but fragile step toward ending a brutal chapter in the region’s history. While it offers temporary relief and a chance for hostages to reunite with their families, it does not address the underlying issues fueling the conflict. The Middle East remains a landscape of deep divisions, shifting alliances, and unfulfilled promises.

For the United States, the ceasefire highlights the complexities of its role as a mediator and the political capital required to influence outcomes in the region. The Biden administration’s efforts and the incoming Trump administration’s approach underscore the divergent strategies in U.S. foreign policy.

Ultimately, the future of Gaza and Israel hinges on the ability of all parties to move beyond short-term solutions and work toward a comprehensive and lasting peace. This requires addressing the humanitarian crisis, rebuilding trust, and fostering dialogue that prioritizes the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Only then can the region hope to break the cycle of violence and pave the way for a brighter future.

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

   This article published at :

1. The Daily Guardian, India: 17 Jan, 25

2. The Nation, Pak : 17 Jan, 25

3. Daily Observer, BD : 17 Jan, 25

4. Minute Mirror, Pak : 17 Jan, 25

5. Pakistan Today, Pak : 18 Jan, 25

6. Daily Messenger, BD : 19 Jan, 25

7. Asian Age, BD : 19 Jan, 25

8. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak :19 Jan, 25