The Iran crisis started on the 28th of February after America and Israel shielded and attacked Iran during peace talks. On 8th April 2026, with the coordination of Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Mr Shahbaz Sharif, a fragile two-week ceasefire was agreed between the two sides, which has now been extended by three weeks. American President Donald Trump announced this earlier this week. Whatever the economic outcome of this war affects the whole world’s economic chain of command. The occupation of the Hormuz Strait by Iran exacerbates the fuel crisis incessantly. The impacts of it make Bangladesh volatile both in handling fuel crisis management challenges and in facing the challenges of load-shedding across the country.
By Md. Al-Amin
Historically and culturally, Bangladesh has a great relationship with Iran, which was reflected in Iran’s announcement of the top six favourite allies, where Bangladesh was considered as one of them. In point of fact, Bangladesh had the golden opportunity to seize its interest and address its fuel issues.
Despite maintaining strong diplomatic ties with Iran, Bangladesh has recently faced difficulties in securing safe passage for its ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Although Iran signalled preferential treatment for friendly nations like Bangladesh in March, the rapidly escalating tensions involving Iran, the United States, and Israel have significantly altered the situation. The region has become highly militarised, making maritime navigation increasingly risky and unpredictable. Even previously granted permissions have proven unreliable due to shifting security conditions and miscommunication. In some cases, Bangladeshi vessels were denied passage despite nearing the strait, reflecting the volatility on the ground. Additionally, insurance risks, rising shipping costs, and security threats such as drone surveillance have discouraged smooth operations. Diplomatic goodwill alone is no longer enough to ensure safe transit amid such complex geopolitical realities. The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical choke point where global power dynamics often override bilateral relations. As a result, Bangladesh has been unable to fully capitalise on Iran’s earlier assurances. This situation highlights the growing gap between diplomatic promises and real-world strategic constraints.
In the midst of continuing diplomatic negotiations, the unexpected airstrikes on February 28 were a shocking incident that sparked subdued reactions and condemnations from all across the world. Bangladesh’s composed responses to the conflict denounced Iranian counterattacks that violated the Gulf states’ sovereignty, but they did not denounce US and Israeli violations of Iran’s sovereignty. The absence of the mention of Iran as the main victim revealed a deeper, structural lapse in Bangladesh’s foreign policy, in addition to the country’s well-known economic vulnerability. Like during the Russia–Ukraine War, Bangladesh avoided importing oil directly from Russia and instead purchased it from India at a higher cost, this might be applicable in that case as well. Two key reasons can explain this pattern. First, indirect procurement creates room for corruption among certain officials through practices such as under-invoicing and over-invoicing. Second—and more critically—it reflects a broader geopolitical dynamic where Bangladesh can be placed under strategic pressure. By increasing dependence on intermediaries, Bangladesh risks being used as a “cat’s paw” in larger power rivalries, which can weaken its economic stability and political autonomy. This kind of pressure can manifest both internally and externally, creating vulnerabilities in policy-making and market stability. In such a situation, major powers like India, China, and the United States may each find opportunities to advance their own strategic and economic interests.
Internal mismanagement in fuel distribution has emerged as another key driver behind the ongoing oil crisis. At the grassroots level, the situation is being further aggravated by the unchecked abuse of power by local political actors at fuel stations. Their influence over supply allocation, often driven by personal or partisan interests, disrupts fair distribution and creates artificial shortages. As a result, ordinary consumers are left to endure long queues, limited access, and inflated prices, making an already fragile energy situation even more severe.
Hoarding by unscrupulous traders is creating an artificial fuel shortage, while growing public anxiety is prompting people to stockpile excess oil, further worsening the crisis. Despite rising fuel prices, long queues at filling stations persist, causing severe traffic congestion and wasting valuable time. The situation is also placing significant strain on daily life, especially in Dhaka, where many individuals rely on motorbikes for their livelihoods, making their income increasingly uncertain. Moreover, the disruption extends to essential services, as professionals in offices, courts, and educational institutions—including teachers, lawyers, and law enforcement personnel—are being heavily affected, ultimately hampering productivity and the smooth functioning of public life. Even fuel shortages have forced the government to reduce working hours and impose energy-saving measures.
Bangladesh should rethink its foreign policy. Clears out its pragmatic position, not focusing on neutrality in this case. The government needs to develop a more diversified energy strategy to reduce vulnerability, strengthen regional partnerships beyond immediate economic considerations, articulate clear positions on international law and sovereignty, and build diplomatic capacity to engage more actively in global forums. Hopefully, Bangladesh will bounce back and reshuffle its foreign policy towards the Middle East, from where remittances come, which matters most to preserve its foreign reserve stability as well.
Md. Al-Amin is an educator. He completed his post-graduation from the Department of International Relations at Rajshahi University,Bangladesh. His research interests are Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Border conflicts, and Security issues.
