Trump’s Iran Gambit: A Region on the Brink

The United States appears to be preparing military action against Iran. Reports of rapid troop movements and mobilization of advanced hardware suggest that a strike could be imminent. Yet, in this moment of peril, the world—and notably Muslim leaders—remains largely silent. Their silence, whether intentional or out of fear, risks turning a dangerous plan into an uncontrollable catastrophe.

My deepest concern is that some regional powers may inadvertently facilitate these strikes. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE could become staging grounds or provide logistical support, directly exposing themselves to Iranian retaliation. Tehran’s drone and missile capabilities are not hypothetical: even a “surgical” US strike could provoke swift counterattacks, endangering civilian populations and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

The most alarming possibility is the elimination of Iran’s top leadership. While some may view this as a tactical objective, it would almost certainly trigger a full-scale regional war. We have seen in past conflicts how targeted killings escalate rather than contain violence, unleashing cycles of retaliation that spiral beyond anyone’s control. The economic consequences would be immediate and global: energy markets would surge, trade routes could be disrupted, and refugee flows would strain neighboring countries. Extremist groups could exploit chaos, further destabilizing the region.

The silence of Muslim-majority nations is deafening. By failing to speak against this looming confrontation, they risk becoming complicit in a war with no winners. The international community—Washington included—must recognize that diplomacy and restraint are far more powerful than pre-emptive strikes. Averted conflict today is exponentially less costly than a conflagration tomorrow.

We stand at a dangerous crossroads. Leadership demands foresight, courage, and moral clarity; recklessness promises death, destruction, and chaos. The world must act now to prevent a spark that could ignite a fire engulfing an entire region. If we do not, history will judge us for failing to speak while war loomed on the horizon.

Congress Must Draw the Line on Iran

As Washington again drifts toward confrontation with Iran, Congress faces a constitutional test it has postponed for far too long. Reports of rapid US military mobilization in the Middle East, coupled with warnings from seasoned observers, suggest that the momentum toward conflict may already be outrunning diplomacy. If so, lawmakers cannot remain spectators.

The bipartisan War Powers Resolution introduced by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie is not a procedural nuisance; it is a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. The Constitution vests the authority to declare war in Congress precisely to prevent unilateral military adventures driven by miscalculation, political impulse, or external pressure. Requiring explicit authorization before striking Iran is the minimum safeguard, not an obstacle to national security.

Recent commentary paints a troubling picture: ultimatums that touch Iran’s declared red lines, paired with skepticism that genuine negotiations are underway. Whether one accepts that assessment or not, prudence demands congressional oversight. Wars have begun on thinner evidence and with greater confidence than hindsight could justify. Iraq remains the cautionary tale of intelligence failures, inflated expectations, and consequences that lasted decades.

The risks today are neither abstract nor distant. Iranian officials have hinted that a broader US strike would trigger severe retaliation. Even limited exchanges could endanger American troops, destabilize energy markets, and ignite a regional escalation that engulfs allies and civilians alike. Military action is easy to start, notoriously hard to contain.

Civil society groups—from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and CodePink—are urging Congress to act. Their arguments vary, but converge on a central point: another Middle East war would be devastating and avoidable. Lawmakers should heed that warning without surrendering to alarmism. The question is not whether Iran poses challenges; it is whether bypassing Congress improves outcomes.

This is a moment for institutional responsibility. Debate the intelligence. Scrutinize the objectives. Weigh the costs. Then vote. If military action is truly necessary, the administration should be able to make its case to the people’s representatives. If it cannot, that itself is an answer.

Congress must draw the line—clearly, constitutionally, and now.

Trump War Mania Crossing All Red Lines

The drumbeat of war rhetoric from Donald Trump toward Iran is no longer just political posturing — it is a test of America’s constitutional integrity. Wars are not reality shows. These are irreversible acts that consume lives, destabilize regions, and stain legacies.

Reporting by Axios, citing journalist Barak Ravid, warns that the United States may be closer to a “massive,” weeks-long conflict than most Americans understand. That phrase should trigger national debate. Instead, Congress is on recess and public discourse remains oddly subdued. Silence, in moments like this, is not neutrality — it is complicity.

America’s strength has never rested solely on military power but on process: consultation with allies, engagement with the United Nations, coordination within NATO, and authorization by the United States Congress. The War Powers Act exists to prevent unilateral escalations driven by impulse or political calculus.

Yet critics observe a troubling vacuum. Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have raised procedural objections, but where is the forceful challenge to the logic, risks, and consequences of war itself? Procedural caution without substantive resistance is an inadequate defense against catastrophe.

Columnist David French captured the absurdity: the nation edges toward possible conflict while Congress appears disengaged and the public largely unaware. Meanwhile, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft warns of familiar patterns — media narratives that amplify hawkish voices while sidelining restraint.

Public opinion tells a clearer story. A YouGov survey shows significantly more Americans opposing military action against Iran than supporting it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism is not isolationism — it is wisdom earned at staggering cost.

President Trump, a war with Iran would not be surgical, swift, or contained. It would ignite regional volatility, shock global markets, and risk drawing America into another open-ended quagmire. History rarely forgives leaders who confuse bravado with strategy.

Congress must act — not later, not symbolically, but now. Debate openly. Assert authority. Because once the first strike is ordered, red lines stop being diplomatic language, but become graves.

Bangladesh: A cabinet dominated by first-timers

All 24 state ministers in the cabinet are new appointees, and 16 of the 25 full ministers are serving in that role for the first time

With BNP Chairman Tarique Rahman sworn in today at the South Plaza of the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, the country got its 11th prime minister.

President Mohammed Shahabuddin administered the oath of the prime minister, 25 ministers, and 24 state ministers.

Among those who become ministers for the first time are: Tarique Rahman, AZM Zahid Hossain, Khalilur Rahman, Abdul Awal Mintoo, Mizanur Rahman Minu, Khandaker Abdul Muktadir, Ariful Haque Choudhury, Zahir Uddin Swapan, Aminur Rashid Yasin, Afroza Khanam Rita, Shahid Uddin Chowdhury Anee, Asaduzzaman Asad, Zakaria Taher, Dipen Dewan, Fokir Mahbub Anam, Sardar Sakhawat Hossain Bokul and Sheikh Robiul Alam.

The new state ministers are: M Rashiduzzaman Millat, Anindya Islam Amit, Shariful Alam, Shama Obaed Islam, Sultan Salahuddin Tuku, Barrister Kaiser Kamal, Farhad Hossain Azad, Md Aminul Haq, Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin, Md Abdul Bari, Mir Shahe Alam, Zonayed Saki, Ishraque Hossain, Farzana Sharmin, Shaikh Faridul Islam, Nurul Haque Nur, Yasser Khan Chowdhury, M Iqbal Hossain, MA Muhith, Ahammad Sohel Manjur, Bobby Hajjaj, Ali Newaz Mahmud Khaiyam, Habibur Rashid and Md Rajib Ahsan.

The new BNP-led government under Tarique Rahman officially took office on Tuesday.

The BNP-led coalition won in 209 seats in the February 12 national election.

A Dangerous Drift Toward Another Unnecessary War

Signals emerging from Washington point toward a trajectory the world has seen before: military escalation presented as strategic necessity. Reports that the United States is preparing for the possibility of sustained operations against Iran should prompt serious reflection, not only in the region but among policymakers who understand how quickly “limited actions” evolve into prolonged conflicts.

Military preparedness is routine; political judgment is decisive. Confusing the two is where danger begins.

At the heart of the debate lies an uncomfortable legal tension. Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), retains the right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Disputes over compliance are meant to be resolved through verification regimes and diplomacy. When the language of air strikes overshadows the mechanisms of inspection, the credibility of multilateral agreements erodes.

History offers sobering reminders. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by intelligence later discredited, destabilized a fragile state and reshaped regional security in ways few architects anticipated. The 2011 intervention in Libya, backed by NATO, removed an entrenched regime yet failed to deliver sustainable governance. These episodes illustrate a persistent reality: regime change may be swift in execution but chaotic in consequence.

Renewed rhetoric about altering Tehran’s political order risks repeating this pattern. Externally driven transitions rarely produce the institutional stability advocates promise. More often, they generate power vacuums, factional conflict, economic collapse, and long-term regional spillovers.

Moral arguments, too, demand consistency. Criticism of Iran’s domestic policies carries greater weight when human rights principles are applied universally rather than selectively. Standards invoked abroad cannot appear negotiable at home without weakening their persuasive force.

Equally problematic is the inflation of threat narratives. Iran’s regional posture is assertive and frequently destabilizing, particularly through its network of non-state partners. Yet portraying it as an imminent global menace compresses complex geopolitical realities into a binary framework that leaves little room for diplomacy. For Israel, whose security concerns are genuine, long-term stability ultimately rests on deterrence, engagement, and regional balance — not perpetual confrontation.

The risks of a sustained conflict are neither theoretical nor remote. Iran’s missile capabilities, asymmetric tools, and retaliatory doctrine make escalation highly probable. States hosting American military installations could become unintended theatres of reprisal. Energy corridors, shipping routes, and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf would face heightened vulnerability. Even a carefully calibrated campaign could trigger consequences far beyond initial objectives.

Diplomacy is slow, imperfect, and politically inconvenient. War is swift, destructive, and rarely confined to its opening script. Strategic calculations must reflect that asymmetry.

One need not be a head of state to recognize the stakes. Even an ordinary citizen can observe that conflicts launched with confidence often conclude with outcomes no one predicted — except the families, economies, and regions left to absorb the costs.

After decades marked by intervention fatigue and strategic overreach, Washington faces a defining choice: reinforce diplomacy and international law, or drift toward another confrontation whose consequences may exceed its rationale.

Strategic patience is not weakness. In a volatile geopolitical landscape, it is the most credible expression of strength.

Election or Selection? Bangladesh at the Crossroads

The latest election in Bangladesh has delivered a result that few found surprising. The continuity of leadership has reinforced a long-standing perception: politics in the country remains shaped by dynastic gravity rather than competitive churn. This predictability has revived an uncomfortable question — was it an election defined by open contest, or a selection shaped by structural advantage?

Since independence, power has largely oscillated between two dominant political forces. Such concentration can project stability, yet it also risks creating democratic fatigue. When outcomes appear preordained and opposition participation limited, public trust in the electoral process inevitably comes under strain. Legitimacy in modern democracies is measured not only by victory margins but by the credibility of the contest itself.

However, Bangladesh’s political story cannot be separated from its geopolitical significance. The country sits at a strategic junction in South Asia, attracting the sustained attention of major powers.

For the United States, Bangladesh represents both an economic partner and a node in the Indo-Pacific calculus. Democratic standards, labour rights, and regional security form key pillars of engagement.

India views Bangladesh through the lens of neighbourhood stability, connectivity, and security cooperation. Political continuity in Dhaka often translates into policy predictability for New Delhi, particularly on trade routes and border management.

China’s expanding footprint reflects its broader Belt and Road ambitions. Infrastructure financing and investment ties have deepened, making Bangladesh an increasingly important partner in Beijing’s regional architecture.

Russia, while less visible, maintains interests in energy cooperation and strategic diversification, seeking relevance in a region marked by intensifying power competition.

This convergence of external interests complicates internal democratic debates. Stability is prized by international partners, yet excessive political closure can breed long-term fragility. A system perceived as exclusionary may preserve short-term order while quietly eroding institutional confidence.

The true test for Bangladesh is not merely electoral endurance but democratic resilience. Elections must be seen as credible mechanisms of choice rather than procedural formalities. Without broader participation and trust, even economic progress may struggle to anchor political legitimacy.

In the end, the question lingers: if elections secure continuity but weaken confidence, what exactly has been strengthened — governance, or doubt?

Intimidating Iran Best Pastime of United States

The recent decision by the United States to dispatch the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, from the Caribbean to the Middle East underscores a persistent pattern in Washington’s approach toward Tehran. The move places two US carriers in the region, with the Ford joining the USS Abraham Lincoln amid renewed tensions with Iran. Officially, the deployment is framed as a precautionary step to reinforce deterrence and preserve regional stability.

Yet beyond the language of deterrence lies a familiar policy reflex: the reliance on military signalling as a primary instrument for influencing Iran’s behaviour. This is hardly unprecedented. In 2012, reports of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates carried similar assurances of routine scheduling and defensive intent. Strategically, however, the message was clear — project strength, signal readiness, and apply pressure without crossing into open conflict.

More than a decade later, the continuity is striking. Carrier deployments, advanced aircraft rotations, and calibrated rhetoric remain central to Washington’s Iran playbook. Such measures undoubtedly serve tactical objectives: reassuring allies, demonstrating capability, and maintaining leverage. But their long-term effectiveness invites scrutiny.

Iran has endured sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and repeated demonstrations of US military power for decades without fundamentally altering its core strategic posture. Pressure has, at times, produced limited concessions, yet it has just as often entrenched mistrust and reinforced Tehran’s security-centric worldview. Deterrence can prevent conflict; it does not automatically resolve the disputes that generate it.

There is also a broader risk. Persistent cycles of escalation and signalling narrow diplomatic space and increase the possibility of miscalculation. In a region already burdened by volatility, symbolism can easily harden into confrontation, even when neither side seeks direct war.

For policymakers and serious observers, the essential question is not whether the United States should maintain a credible security presence in the Middle East. It is whether intimidation-centric strategies yield diminishing returns when repeated without parallel diplomatic innovation.

A more sustainable path would balance firmness with structured engagement — linking military posture to transparent negotiation frameworks, confidence-building measures, and pragmatic channels of communication. History suggests that durable stability rarely emerges from coercion alone.

Power projection may shape headlines and influence short-term calculations, but it cannot indefinitely substitute for political imagination. Lasting progress will depend not on repeating familiar gestures, but on redefining the terms of engagement.