Editorial

The recent indirect nuclear talks between the United States and Iran in Geneva mark a cautiously encouraging step in one of the world’s most volatile diplomatic standoffs. As reported on February 17, 2026, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the discussions as “serious, constructive, and positive,” highlighting an agreement on a set of “guiding principles” that could serve as the foundation for future negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. officials echoed this sentiment, noting that “progress was made” while emphasizing that substantial details remain unresolved, with Iran promising detailed proposals within the next two weeks to bridge remaining gaps.

This development arrives against a tense backdrop. President Donald Trump’s administration has intensified military pressure, deploying additional forces to the Middle East and issuing stark warnings of potential strikes if no deal materializes. Iran’s Supreme Leader and military have responded with defiant rhetoric and demonstrations of force, including temporary naval drills that partially closed sections of the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil supplies flow. Such actions briefly spiked market anxieties, yet the talks’ positive signals quickly offset them.

The market reaction has been telling: Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices dipped notably, with WTI hovering around $62 per barrel and Brent near $67 as of February 18, trading at two-week lows. This relief reflects investor hopes that de-escalation could avert disruptions, ease sanctions on Iran, and potentially increase global supply flows. While no breakthrough occurred—no date for the next round has been set, and core demands diverge sharply—the agreement on guiding principles suggests both sides recognize the high costs of failure.

For the U.S., success would curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions without war, stabilize energy markets, and bolster Trump’s “maximum pressure” legacy through diplomacy. For Iran, it offers a pathway to sanctions relief amid economic strain and domestic unrest. Yet realism is essential: previous rounds (including in Oman) showed limited headway, and mutual distrust persists—Iran insists talks remain nuclear-focused, while the U.S. pushes broader concessions.

Ultimately, these Geneva discussions represent fragile progress in a high-stakes arena where military shadows loom large. If momentum holds, a framework could emerge, lowering geopolitical risk premiums and benefiting global energy security. But if gaps prove unbridgeable, escalation remains a real threat. Diplomacy has opened a narrow window; sustained, pragmatic engagement will determine whether it widens or slams shut. The coming weeks, with Iran’s forthcoming proposals, will be decisive.

The swearing-in of Tarique Rahman as Bangladesh’s Prime Minister on February 17, 2026, marks a watershed moment in the nation’s turbulent political history. Following the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP) resounding landslide victory in the recent parliamentary elections—the first since the 2024 student-led uprising that ousted Sheikh Hasina after 15 years of increasingly authoritarian rule—this transition restores elected civilian governance after an interim period led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

Tarique Rahman, son of former President Ziaur Rahman and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, has completed a remarkable personal and political arc. Having lived in self-imposed exile in London for 17 years amid corruption allegations and political persecution under the Awami League government, he returned only months ago to lead the BNP to a commanding majority—securing over 200 seats in the Jatiya Sangsad. This victory reflects widespread public fatigue with repression, economic mismanagement, and one-party dominance under Hasina, as well as enthusiasm for the BNP’s promises of democratic reforms, economic revival, and rule of law.

The election itself, with turnout around 60%, was largely peaceful and seen as a genuine test of Bangladesh’s democratic aspirations post-uprising. Voters endorsed constitutional changes, including term limits for prime ministers and enhanced parliamentary checks, signaling a desire to prevent future authoritarian backsliding. Rahman’s administration now faces immense challenges: rebuilding institutions eroded by politicization, addressing youth unemployment, stabilizing the economy amid inflation and debt pressures, and fostering national reconciliation in a polarized society.

A key aspect of this shift will be its implications for Bangladesh’s relations with India. Under Hasina, ties were exceptionally close—often described as a “golden era”—with extensive cooperation on security, trade, transit, and energy. India viewed her government as a reliable partner against Islamist militancy and border instability. The BNP, historically more nationalist and occasionally accused of fostering anti-India sentiments (particularly during Khaleda Zia’s tenure), has long criticized perceived over-dependence on New Delhi.

There is likely to be a noticeable shift, though not necessarily a rupture. Early indications suggest pragmatism: India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly congratulated Rahman and held discussions, emphasizing continuity in bilateral ties. Rahman has appealed for unity and regional stability, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric toward India so far. Economic interdependence—India remains a major trading partner, source of power, and transit hub—will constrain any drastic pivot. However, the new government may seek greater balance, perhaps pursuing diversified foreign relations (including with China and the West), renegotiating certain agreements perceived as unequal, and adopting a firmer stance on issues like water-sharing (e.g., Teesta River) or border enclaves.

Ultimately, Rahman’s premiership offers Bangladesh a chance to reset toward inclusive democracy and sustainable growth. Success will hinge on delivering on reform promises while navigating domestic divisions and geopolitical realities. For India, this change demands diplomatic finesse to preserve strategic gains without alienating a new Dhaka leadership eager to assert sovereignty. The coming months will reveal whether this shift fosters cooperation or friction in South Asia’s delicate balance.

• SAS Kirmani