Iran War, Bishkek Conference Could Be a Test for Bangladesh

Many breathed a sigh of relief when the US and Iran reached an agreement to end the Iran War. Although the memorandum of understanding was not a permanent agreement, it aimed to reach a final agreement within 60 days. The memorandum of understanding was signed on 17 June of this year. As such, the 60-day period ended on 16 August. No final agreement was reached during this period. Negotiations did not progress towards a final agreement; instead, the agreement practically collapsed midway.
Along with Pakistan, countries like Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey also extended their diplomatic efforts to help the US-Iran agreement to various degrees. Almost all of these countries have a stronger position against Israel. Although Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, the latter has violated it many times. Then again, Qatar made efforts to improve relations with Israel several times with active Western encouragement, but Qatar-Israel relations also became hostile when Israel carried out a drone attack in Qatar in 2025 under the pretext of targeting Hamas leaders. As a result of these underlying currents and cross-currents, international political polarisation was clear even in the US-Iran reconciliation initiative. Although the Lebanese warfront was included in the reconciliation, Israel straightaway rejected it. Again, although Iran’s rights to manage the Strait of Hormuz were recognised in some way, the US has continuously expressed its annoyance and displeasure over it since the signing of the MOU, and the US has launched isolated missile attacks on Iran during the period of the reconciliation in force over the Hormuz issue. Iran has also retaliated. This is how the effectiveness of the said memorandum of understanding collapsed.
Important events also came out around this period. The Iran War situation was discussed during Donald Trump’s latest visit to Beijing. The distance between the US and Israel has widened. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have signed the Mecca Alliance, pledging collective defence. The issue of war with Iran has also come up in the stalled Canada-US trade talks. More recently, the ten-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in the capital of Kyrgyzstan also discussed the Iran War issue, and this was reflected significantly in the Bishkek Declaration issued at the end of the summit. In other words, Middle Eastern politics is now influencing and accelerating the polarisation of global politics.
The Bishkek Summit was attended by the heads of state or government of Kyrgyzstan, China and Russia, as well as Iran, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Mongolia, Laos, Togo and Türkiye. The SCO has now taken on a role more like a non-aligned movement. The Bishkek Declaration strongly criticised the United States and Israel for their unilateral armed attack on Iran, saying that their attack was a clear violation of international law and a violation of the UN Charter. The Declaration unequivocally supported Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for an end to the conflict through diplomatic means. It also condemned Israel for its continued unjust aggression against Palestine. It declared that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians must be taken into account for a lasting peace in the Middle East. The Bishkek Summit criticised the economic sanctions imposed on Iran, and called on the international community to ignore them. The United States is certainly watching this closely, but is it learning anything from this? Maybe Donald Trump has recently been increasingly concerned about the November midterm elections. The Iran War and the failed trade talks with both China and Canada have already put the Trump administration in a serious predicament. If the Republicans lose the election, they will be cornered in Congress. In that case, continuing the trade war or getting involved in a war in the Middle East could be economically challenging for Trump.
This is also a challenging time for Bangladesh. On the one hand, the government is struggling to bring employment opportunities to the vast number of youths and instil overall dynamism in the economy. On the other hand, it is creating a precarious position by making several seemingly whimsical and short-sighted decisions in building foreign relations. This raises suspicions that even though the government says ‘Bangladesh First’ on its face, it may be walking the opposite path in practice. The government has spread vague ideas about the Mecca Alliance. The same is true about the Prime Minister’s visit to India. The government is also mysteriously silent about the interim government’s trade agreement with the United States. Many articles of this agreement have yet to be disclosed. But the government has reached several unequal purchase agreements, perhaps only to please the United States. Although Bangladesh once showed interest in joining BRICS and has now been invited to participate in the upcoming BRICS summit, the country may not participate in that summit due to its strained relations with India.
Since 2012, Bangladesh has been expressing its desire to become an observer of the SCO. It is a failure for Bangladesh that it has not been able to join the SCO even after 14 years. The current government could prove that it is sovereign in making foreign policy choices and is capable of creating a balance voluntarily and out of its own necessity if it had been able to become an observer of the SCO. Therefore, for the current government, the observer status of the SCO is like an acid test.

The writer is a former Bangladeshi Ambassador