(This article was written by Derk Jan Eppink and appeared in Wynia’s Week. Den Haag mag wel wat minder zelfgenoegzaam zijn over het Hongarije van Victor Orban, zoveel fraaier is onze netwerkcorruptie niet)

For years the Dutch House of Representatives held intense debates about Viktor Orban’s Hungary, for many the contemporary “Count Dracula on the Danube.” His name was treated as a curse, as it was by PRO member of parliament Kati Piri, whose father fled Hungary in 1956. For Piri it was “personal,” even though Orban had earned his stripes as a dissident in the Eastern Bloc. Yet in The Hague “Orban” was the bogeyman. That had more to do with The Hague’s need for an exorcism than with Orban himself. Now he is gone, has acknowledged his defeat, congratulated his opponent Péter Magyar, and left. A real Dracula would have lashed out ferociously.

On 19 May 2021, in her maiden speech in the House of Representatives, Piri spoke about her father and his departure from Hungary during the uprising against the invasion by Warsaw Pact countries in 1956. He saw no future there anymore but occasionally returned as a tourist, from the Netherlands. He would then say: “we are back in that dark country.”

Tired of Orban, but Not of His Policies

Orban grew up in Hungary as a young dissident and in 1989 demanded the withdrawal of the Soviet troops still stationed there. As prime minister he worked toward Hungary’s accession to NATO and the EU. In 2022 there was great excitement in the House because forecasts predicted that Orban would lose the parliamentary elections. Members of parliament such as Piri, Sjoerdsma (D66) and Van der Lee (GroenLinks) looked forward to the fall of the “potentate.” But Orban won, and disappointment remained.

Do these parties now have reason to celebrate? Not really, except that Orban is leaving, and after 16 years as prime minister it was about time. Hungarians had grown tired of the bombastic Orban, but not of his policies. In the new Hungarian parliament, TISZA, the party of Péter Magyar, took 53.3% of the vote and gathered 138 of the 199 parliamentary seats. A convincing victory. Orban’s Fidesz was stuck at 38.1% with 55 seats, while a small nationalist party won 6 seats with 5.8%.

In the new Hungarian parliament sit: the centre-right, the right, and the far right. Not a single left-wing party cleared the 5% electoral threshold; social liberals of the VVD/D66 type, socialists and greens (PRO) also fell by the wayside. And yet, last June, there were members of the Dutch parliament from VVD, PvdA/GL, D66 and the mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, to demonstrate in Budapest against the ban on the Pride march, which incidentally took place undisturbed. In short: Dutch politicians demonstrated in Budapest to burnish their own political profile. Their kindred spirits in Hungary were not elected. The name Orban served in the Netherlands as imported glory of resistance.

Cronyism

Criticism of Orban is largely justified. Magyar split off from Fidesz after his wife, Judit Varga, resigned from the Orban government as Minister of Justice. The Hungarian president had granted clemency to a man who turned out to have been involved in child abuse. Varga had co-signed the clemency request. For Magyar that was reason to leave Fidesz and found his own party. The affair caused the Orban government enormous damage.

A carousel of scandals arises when parties and individuals stay in power too long. That certainly applied to Orban. As a dissident he fought for a democracy that under him gradually slid into cronyism: a rule of friends who pass the ball to one another. The bigger the cronyism, the more room for the corruption that ultimately permeates society and blocks the economy. Whoever needs an appointment at the doctor’s must first lay a wad of Hungarian banknotes on the table. That affects the ordinary citizen across the entire country and also explains the scale of Orban’s defeat. As soon as visiting the doctor becomes difficult, the voter’s patience runs out fast. A loud show of support from American vice president J.D. Vance, meant to give Orban a hand, achieves nothing. A grandly announced offer of billions in investment from the U.S. is met with disbelief. The voter wants “bread and butter.”

The Hague’s Cronyism

That cronyism did Orban in. But does the Netherlands have its own “Hague cronyism”? A scarcely transparent system of (political) appointments and subsidy flows in which, of all people, a “progressive administrative elite” hands out jobs and subsidies. Mayors, directors of government agencies, senior civil service posts, NGOs. “Networking” is the key word. “Network corruption” the consequence. The result: the state grows, the economy stagnates.

Long-ruling parties lie at the root of it, as the CDA once did. Orban ruled for 16 years; the VVD now does too. D66 and PRO are taking over the banner. Top positions for male friends, and above all for female ones. That this cronyism breeds intellectual inbreeding and diploma hyperinflation can be seen in the sitting cabinet. The citizen is the one who pays the price and ultimately takes revenge at the ballot box. Precisely what happened to Orban.

Terror Háza

In Brussels the flags came out when the Hungarian voter sent Orban home. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, congratulated Magyar at once. She compared the electoral victory to the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. That comparison is typical of an ignorant Commission president who, as a German, ought to be ashamed.

I was recently in Budapest to soak up a bit of the atmosphere and visited the Terror Háza (House of Terror) where the Hungarian secret police made short work of dissidents in 1956. Show trials followed. Those sentenced to death were locked up in small cells in the gruesome building at Andrássy 60, among them Prime Minister Imre Nagy, who advocated a “separate road to socialism.” Von der Leyen thought she would shine, but struck false notes. The crushing of the Uprising was worse than Orban.

Anyone who thinks the Magyar government will dance to Von der Leyen’s tune is mistaken. On 22 January of this year, the “Patriots for Europe” group tabled a motion of no confidence against Von der Leyen. Magyar is currently a member of the European Parliament with 6 fellow TISZA members in the EPP group of Christian Democrats. They effectively backed the motion against Von der Leyen by absenting themselves from the vote, and were punished by the group leadership: a six-month “speaking ban.” That punishment also struck the two-member BBB delegation, which switched to the European Conservatives (ECR). British Conservatives once characterized the EPP as: “a prison run by Germans.”

Von der Leyen expects Magyar to obey. But he has a different agenda. Magyar announced that Hungary will continue importing Russian oil, that it will not take part in EU loans for Ukraine, that it opposes a swift EU accession by Ukraine, and he likewise advocates lifting sanctions against Russia. Moreover, Ukraine must treat its Hungarian minority better. Magyar turns against the EU migration pact; above all, no Islamic asylum seekers. Spot the differences with Orban.

A History Refresher for Von der Leyen

That is not what Brussels wants, nor what the Dutch minority cabinet wants. During the Orban period the EU froze 17 billion euros in EU funds over “the rule of law.” And 10 billion in the Corona Recovery Fund. Von der Leyen uses those sums to force Hungary into an about-face: money in exchange for concessions. In short: a Brussels Diktat! Magyar has room to manoeuvre on the Ukraine support package, but if he caves on asylum, he signs his own political death warrant. Even the Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, the former “President of Europe,” did not dare to do that.

Perhaps Von der Leyen will visit Budapest, with the House of Terror and what remains of the Jewish quarter on the agenda, for her much-needed history refresher. The haughty and slogan-laden style of Von der Leyen already comes across as irritating in the Netherlands, but it runs directly counter to the mentality in Eastern Europe, where people are beginning to perceive Brussels as a new version of the former Moscow.

Derk Jan Eppink is a Distinguished Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

Day 35 situation report on the Iran conflict covering regional spillover, homeland threats, cyber operations, and diplomatic developments.

Continue reading

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Trump forja su nueva alianza con Iberoamérica)

While Europe threatens to fall apart, in the Americas a new organization for the defense of freedom and common security is being created.

A buoyant President Donald Trump, confident he can soon end the war in Iran with the disappearance of the planet’s largest terrorist regime, yesterday gathered twelve presidents of Ibero-America in Miami to found a new organization, the Shield of the Americas, whose objective is the all-out fight against the drug cartels and the curbing of Chinese penetration throughout the American continent.

The meeting at the Doral Golf Club, owned by the president, is unprecedented because it stems from the convergence of interests, ideology and political will of Trump and his team — led by Marco Rubio — with the increasingly numerous conservative and anti-socialist leaders of Ibero-America. And its ambitious aim is to carry out the modernizing revolution of the continent that makes possible the advance of conservative forces toward the defeat of the alliance of left-wing forces with organized crime, and very especially with the large organizations of drug production and trafficking.

The new organization has a political, moral and intellectual link with Europe through the main channel of dialogue and political collaboration between the right-wing forces of all the Americas and the European right of patriots, conservatives and sovereigntists, which is constantly growing in the European nations. This organization for the political cooperation of the two pillars of the American West fits harmoniously into the project of the three pillars of the West that is the object of the policy of the Madrid Forum, which develops the Madrid Charter promoted by the Disenso foundation under the direction of the president of Vox, Santiago Abascal. Many of those attending are signatories of the Madrid Charter, collaborators of Patriots for Europe, allies and even personal friends of Abascal.

For the first time, a front is being forged in which the U.S. and numerous solid democratic allies of Ibero-America set out to put an end to the tragic and catastrophic prominence in Ibero-America of a violent, subversive and destructive left that made rivers of blood run throughout the subcontinent since the Cuban revolution. And Cuba — its mafia-like, communist and murderous regime, the infectious focus of violent communist subversion for nearly 70 years — will be the next to fall in the advance of this general redesign in which the dictatorships fed by crime are defeated and abolished.

America is beginning to unite in the reconquest of freedom, security and justice, with a recovery of the traditional values and virtues of the West and an unambiguous victory over the communist, socialist and drug-trafficking forces. The Shield of America aims to be an organization in defense of the market economy and the rule of law, and of self-defense against attempts at penetration by totalitarian and criminal powers.

Many countries have yet to join, and three of the largest — Mexico, Brazil and Colombia — remain in the hands of a left allied with the drug cartels. But the continent’s greatest focus of crime, the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro, is being dismantled — not as quickly as many of us wish, but steadily.

Meanwhile, the European Union shows ever more signs of dissolution, with a power in Brussels — embodied by Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission — that is failed and adrift, and member states that openly reconsider their own interests in order to appease the growing rebellion of their increasingly poor, frustrated and dissatisfied citizens.

While in Europe the rulers have more differences every day in how to confront times of crisis amid the formation of a new world order — and cannot even agree on the degree of hostility toward Donald Trump — in America there are many who see the immense opportunity of a reconstruction of the West.

While the narco-socialist left throughout the West, Islamism allied with socialism, and some pathetic intellectuals weep over what they call “Anglo-Zionist imperialism,” American rulers reach agreement to advance security, freedom and prosperity.

At the Miami summit, the U.S. and twelve presidents take part. Among the leaders present are Javier Milei (Argentina), Rodrigo Paz Pereira (Bolivia), José Antonio Kast (Chile, to be sworn in this Wednesday), Rodrigo Chaves (Costa Rica), Luis Abinader (Dominican Republic), Daniel Noboa (Ecuador), Santiago Peña (Paraguay), Nayib Bukele (El Salvador), Irfaan Ali (Guyana), Nasry “Tito” Asfura (Honduras), José Raúl Mulino (Panama) and Kamla Persad-Bissessar (Trinidad and Tobago).

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in Newsmax. Trump’s Policies Position U.S. as Global Commodities Powerhouse)

In times of market volatility and global uncertainty an old, tired and tested truth reasserts itself; when the world looks uncertain and investors are anxious, gold is still the best insurance policy.

Gold has soared to record highs, surpassing $5,500 per ounce for the first time in history on Jan. 29, 2026 and has since remained structurally elevated, reflecting sustained demand rather than a short-term panic bid.

High demand also exposed the fragility of global commodity supply chains in the form of physical bottlenecks and delays in deliveries.

Chaos and turbulence have an exceptional way of revealing which nations and leaders are prepared, and the United States is positioned to turn this moment into dominance.

President Trump has made “America First” the guiding mission of his second term.

To achieve this, our industries need to be repatriated with full control of supply chains that sit squarely in American hands.

Trump’s new economic policies have targeted U.S. competitors with tariffs while his reshoring incentives, regulatory reforms and strategic stockpiling of resources aim to build up the backbone of the American economy by securing supply chains.

A particular emphasis falls on a strong dollar supported by tangible assets like gold, alongside incentives for domestic production of physical commodities.

This is why in August 2025 President Trump announced that gold would no longer be subject to tariffs on strategic and monetary imports – a decision that was not only successful in stabilizing the market, but also sent a firm message to the world that gold is treated as a currency but the U.S.

America is positioned to emerge as the foremost hub for gold trading in the world.

Gold follows power, and power and stability are the cornerstones of the United States.

America is unmatched in its financial infrastructure, rule of law and legal certainty, and its global position backed by credible hard power in the form of the world’s strongest military. No rival can match this level of stability and security.

Free-market capitalism, America’s enduring global export (with a focus on physical assets), naturally compliments this strategy, with private companies acting as essential shock absorbers.

With their global logistics network and their own inventories, they can reliably bridge the gaps in rerouting cargoes and providing liquidity, especially when market volatility, often emanating from the fluctuation of commodities markets, restricts governments and central banks in real time.

This agility of the private sector is precisely what President Trump, drawing on his business experience, is relying on.

Leading energy and commodity trading firm BGN Group, Glencore and Trafigura are among the private actors that maintain trade flows and mitigate disruptions with its global transport, storage and financing capabilities.

For example, BGN Group holds inventories across multiple jurisdictions, chartering and operating transport fleets, and financing cargoes when traditional lenders pull back, showing the manner in which private traders can smooth disruptions that would otherwise trigger extreme price spikes or delivery failures.

Thanks to such networks, physical commodities continue to move even when political and financial channels experience pressure.

The role and influence of private trading companies, such as BGN and others, will only expand in the coming years as the global scramble for tangible assets intensifies and geopolitical competition becomes the norm.

If a mature market like gold can experience delays and premiums, less developed ones like critical minerals can undergo even greater shocks.

Trump’s forward-looking strategy is already preparing for a world in which commodities will be weaponized and used as strategic levers over other nations.

China already demonstrated this willingness in 2010 with Japan and again in late 2025 with new export restrictions on rare earths (later partially suspended, underscoring Beijing’s willingness to recalibrate tactically without abandoning the use of commodities as leverage following U.S.-led negotiations).

Trump’s policies of reclaiming U.S. sovereignty over commodities guarantees that such tactics will never again be used against the American people.

Recent market volatilities reminded us that financial systems are only as strong as the physical assets underpinning them.

Such strategic assets, including private traders, domestic producers and the robust financial system of the United States will work together to transform uncertainty into dominance in the global commodities market.

America is leading the next phase of strategic competition.

And as gold rises, so does American power.

Adelle Nazarian is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Sánchez y Jamenei, Elon y la verdad)

It is laughable to hear Sánchez say that his attempts to end freedom of expression are a fight against tech magnates.

It is entirely logical that Pedro Sánchez seeks pretexts to control and censor social media. Just as it is logical that the government of socialists and communists in Spain has launched a hysterical campaign against all the media that allow citizens to express their opinions freely. As logical as it is that Ayatollah Khamenei blocked all the networks on the Internet when he decided to begin massacring the population to set a bloody example that would guarantee his survival, at least until he could weigh other options.

It is laughable to hear Sánchez say that his attempts to end freedom of expression are a fight against tech magnates. When he is an obedient pet in the general seven-ring circus of beasts and dwarves run by the Soroses, Bill Gateses and so many other members of the club of social and human engineering — as regular at Davos as they are friends of China.

Sánchez is not Khamenei, if only because we are in another corner of the world where today, at least for now, there are things that no longer happen and have not happened again. But both Sánchez and Khamenei share, as rulers who fear their people, a will to persecute, blind and crush the truth without any scruple. The truth is their greatest enemy because it is what mobilizes, inspires and arms their respective peoples against their governments of lies and misery.

Social media — and especially X, the former Twitter, the only one that since Elon Musk became its owner has not allowed itself to be intimidated, bought or blackmailed by governments — are today the greatest enemy of every authoritarian, lying, abusive, criminal or openly criminal ruler. Governments that know their legitimacy is questioned or threatened know that the networks are their enemy because on them the truth flows in a way impossible to control unless they have bought or kidnapped the owners.

However much some media such as El Debate are an honorable and extremely rare example of professional dignity in journalism today, the networks combine information with the experiences, feelings and concerns of their consumers in such a fluid and fast way that it is lethal for those who try to defend a uniform lie.

In this sense — and leaving Khamenei now in his Eastern corner, watching how he negotiates his survival with Donald Trump — in Europe Pedro Sánchez is none other than the most radical and extreme of the rulers of an increasingly radicalized social democracy as a whole. It has radicalized out of the very anguish generated by its fear of losing the hegemony it has managed to maintain, in its various disguises, for more than half a century in Europe.

In Brussels, the dwindling majority that still maintains that hegemony — made up of the People’s Party, socialists, greens and communists — is bent on generating instruments of censorship and pretexts to use them. They already know they have lost the political argument, as is shown in every electoral campaign in Europe over the last two years and above all in their results. It is seen in Austria and Germany, as it will be seen today in Aragon, was seen in Extremadura, and will be seen in all the Spanish regions, as it is seen in all European countries.

Panic is spreading in what we might call the two-party system, or the single social-democratic party. And while we take it for granted that they will not use Khamenei’s methods in the streets, we can also be certain that they will go very far in administrative and legal methods while they can — judicial and police, as well as propagandistic — to try to maintain that hegemony.

To try not to be swept away by the national and anti-socialist forces that feed on the frustration and indignation over the continuous failures, the stubborn persistence in error and the permanent lies of the political power of the social-democratic consensus of Brussels and the thousand tentacles of its bureaucratic monster.

The attempts to crush freedom of expression — also on the part of those who claim to be its defenders — are part of the anguished self-defense of political forces and an ideology that are definitively failed. Freedom of the press will be the force that largely determines the speed of the changes, which would already have been much greater had Western societies had an honest journalism rather than a sectarian and militant one, with few exceptions.

The purchase of X by Elon Musk, which freed this network from the clutches of the left, was fundamental to Donald Trump’s victory. That victory has been decisive for the offensive to conquer freedoms and rights in Ibero-American countries subjugated by narco-socialism. And it has also been a deterrent to the European Union’s temptations to act with its particular Brezhnev Doctrine against conservative and national forces. Had Kamala Harris won, many in Europe would have believed the moment had come to ban parties that tend to be in the majority. That was not the case, and that is why the change of era is going to be much faster than many believe and some hope.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in Blaze Media. The US-Japan alliance keeps China from bullying the world into higher prices)

China’s air and sea provocations aren’t ‘over there’ problems. They aim to dominate trade routes. Deterrence protects American consumers and American leverage.

China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific no longer comes in bursts. It has become dangerous and systematic for America.

A recent long-range patrol by Chinese forces, conducted alongside Russia, prompted Japan to scramble fighter jets. It marked the latest in a string of incidents after months of heightened Chinese military activity around the Senkaku Islands.

These shows of force don’t happen by accident. China uses them to normalize military pressure, probe red lines, and test the unity of U.S.-led alliances.

This latest episode also made one thing clear, at least: The Trump administration is watching closely.

In a visible show of solidarity with Tokyo, U.S. strategic bombers joined Japanese fighter aircraft for high-profile drills. Days earlier, Chinese military aircraft conducted takeoffs and landings inside Japan’s air defense identification zone and shadowed Japanese aircraft with their radar off near Okinawa. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s State Department expressed concern and reaffirmed its commitment to a “strong and more united” U.S.-Japan alliance.

Washington increasingly recognizes what Tokyo has understood for years: China’s behavior doesn’t just destabilize the region. It challenges the security order that has kept the Indo-Pacific from tipping into open conflict.

That reality puts a premium on reliable partnerships. No partnership matters more than the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Nowhere does that matter more than Taiwan. China’s large-scale military exercises, dubbed Justice Mission 2025, have pushed tensions in the Taiwan Strait to the highest levels in decades. Beijing aims to intimidate Taipei, warn off “external interference,” and alter the status quo through pressure rather than persuasion.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy arrived in that environment. While headlines still focus on Europe and the Middle East, the document makes the administration’s priorities clear: The Indo-Pacific remains central to U.S. strategy.

The NSS describes the Indo-Pacific as a critical economic hub that accounts for nearly half of global GDP. It commits the United States to a “free and open” Indo-Pacific by securing sea lanes and upholding international law.

That framework didn’t start in Washington. Japan first advanced the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific, and the region later adopted it through partnerships such as the Quad — the informal grouping of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.

Rather than announcing a new direction, the NSS reinforces a familiar one: Alliances form the core of deterring China. Unlike the Trump playbook in Ukraine, the administration treats alliances as the bedrock of Indo-Pacific security against Beijing’s expanding military reach.

Japan sits at the heart of that network.

China pressures Japan across its waters and airspace, making Tokyo a frontline state. Japan also serves as the United States’ indispensable partner in the region, with basing, interoperability, and shared strategy that no other ally can match at the same scale. Under new conservative leadership, Japan has begun acting with urgency.

Japan’s defense minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, has emphasized that urgency, warning that the country now faces its most severe security environment since World War II. Japan has deepened coordination with the U.S. and other like-minded partners while strengthening its military capabilities by accelerating security reforms and easing restrictions on defense equipment transfers.

Japan has also moved up its plan to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP — from 2027 to now. That headline matters less than where the money goes.

Tokyo has prioritized capabilities suited for a long-term, high-risk environment: unmanned aerial vehicles, expanded surveillance platforms, and submarines equipped with vertical-launch missile systems.

Japan’s objective looks straightforward. It aims to become a more capable military partner that complements U.S. forces rather than relying on them by default. That shift aligns with President Trump’s demand that allies reduce dependence on American power by strengthening their own defense industries and readiness.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has also moved beyond drills and declarations toward defense-industrial cooperation. Expanded maintenance and repair coordination, along with eased export controls, have begun laying the groundwork for a durable security partnership.

This collaboration marks a shift from rhetoric to endurance. Aligning strategy with industrial capacity won’t eliminate risk. It will raise the cost of Chinese coercion and reduce the chances that Beijing miscalculates.

Koizumi has stressed that 80 years after World War II, the U.S.-Japan alliance still embodies reconciliation and remains the best instrument to deter China’s rising aggression.

If Washington and Tokyo keep strengthening this partnership — in capability, production, and resolve — they can make the Indo-Pacific more difficult for Beijing to bully and far more stable for everyone who depends on it.

Adelle Nazarian is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in The Western Journal. When Rumor Becomes a Death Sentence: Bangladesh’s Crisis and the Test for Democratic Leadership)

The fatal beating, lynching, and burning of Bangladeshi Hindu Dipu Chandra Das, followed days later by the mob killing of fellow Hindu Amrit Mondal, was not spontaneous violence. It was a failure of the state: clear, deliberate, and lethal.

Dipu was a 25-year-old garment worker, a husband, a father, and the sole provider for his family, including two elderly parents, one disabled. Above all, he was a Hindu in a Muslim-majority country, a member of a vulnerable minority. His life mattered. And the state failed him.

On December 18, a rumor spread that Dipu had spoken negatively about Islam. There is no verified evidence that he did. What is verified is that he begged the police for protection and was instead handed over to an Islamist mob.

He was beaten to death, stripped naked, tied to a tree, and burned along the Dhaka-Mymensingh highway, in full public view. This did not happen despite the police. It happened because they allowed it.

The mob killed Dipu because they did not need proof. That is the danger of blasphemy-driven violence: When rumor replaces evidence, fear replaces law.

Days later, Amrit Mondal was beaten to death. Authorities rushed to downplay communal motives, but pattern matters more than intent. Two Hindu men. Two public killings. Two mobs. Two state failures.

That is not a coincidence. It is a trajectory.

There is no confirmed evidence that Dipu’s and Amrit’s killers were formal members of a single political organization, and that distinction matters legally.

But it does not erase reality. Both killings bear the hallmarks of Islamist mob violence: the weaponization of accusation, the targeting of minorities, and the social permission to kill without consequence.

This is how plausible deniability works. Leaders remain insulated while mobs do the dirty work.

Bangladesh has seen this before. In 1971, at least 2.8 million Hindus were massacred by the Pakistani Army and allied Islamist forces in less than a year.

That trauma never fully healed. It merely went dormant, resurfacing whenever political authority weakens and extremist actors sense opportunity.

In 2022, the U.S. Congress introduced House Resolution 1430, “Recognizing the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971,” a resolution seeking to formally recognize those atrocities as genocide and crimes against humanity. The effort that stalled legislatively, even as international genocide scholars officially affirmed that designation in 2023. That opportunity is now visible.

The return of Tarique Rahman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party after roughly 16 years in exile is not a neutral political development. It signals the reactivation of old power networks at a moment of institutional fragility.

His arrival ahead of the upcoming elections coincides not with stabilization, but with a surge in street-level intimidation, communal violence, and state paralysis. And it brings with it the likelihood that Bangladesh will soon be run by the radical Jamaat-e-Islami, which means no minorities will be safe.

Even if the BNP gains ground, Tarique Rahman’s leadership from exile leaves him ill-positioned to govern or unify the country.

That weakness creates an opening for Jamaat-e-Islami to gain outsized influence through coalition politics, advancing Islamist priorities without winning outright.

The danger is not a sudden takeover, but the quiet erosion of Bangladesh’s secular foundations from within the government.

Fear is the factor that shapes elections in fragile democracies. When minorities are publicly brutalized, and the state hesitates, a message is sent about who is protected and who is expendable.

For India, this is not merely a human-rights crisis. It is a strategic warning. Bangladesh sits on India’s eastern flank, and when the rule of law collapses there, India feels it first through instability, radicalization, and refugee pressure.

Anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh does not exist in isolation. It feeds directly into India’s internal security calculus, particularly in border regions already vulnerable to extremist Islamist influence.

For years, New Delhi invested heavily in a stable, secular Bangladesh as a regional partner, one that stood in contrast to Pakistan’s chronic instability and Afghanistan’s descent into Islamist rule.

The ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina placed that assumption in jeopardy. What India is now witnessing is not simply a political transition, but the early signs of a dangerous drift toward religious majoritarianism, institutional erosion, and extremist accommodation.

In a recent interview with New India Abroad, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina underscored why her leadership had helped make Bangladesh a more stable and prosperous nation.

Reflecting on her departure amid escalating unrest, she stated, “My instinct has always been to protect our country and our citizens, and it was not an easy decision to leave while my country erupted into lawlessness. I regret that I was compelled to leave, but it was a decision I took to minimize any further loss of life, and to ensure the safety of people around me.”

She went on to outline the conditions necessary for her return, emphasizing that legitimacy must rest on law, not force.

“For me to return, Bangladesh must restore constitutional governance and the rule of law,” she wrote. “This means lifting the unlawful ban on the Awami League, releasing political prisoners detained on fabricated charges, and holding genuinely free elections. You cannot claim democratic legitimacy while banning the party elected nine times by the people.”

The killings of Dipu Chandra Das and Amrit Mondal are not isolated crimes. They are indicators. With elections approaching and authority fragmented, Islamist street power is testing how far it can go. And the answer they are giving is far enough.

That erosion of trust places responsibility on the United States as well. On Dec. 28, the U.S. State Department issued a statement condemning the killings and urging Bangladesh to protect religious minorities and uphold the rule of law.

The statement was necessary. It was correct. And it now requires tangible follow-through.

For generations, America has claimed the mantle of democracy, pluralism, and freedom of belief. Those ideals only retain meaning when defended under pressure. Jamaat-e-Islami and groups associated with them must be actioned accordingly.

Instability does not begin with coups or wars, but with the normalization of violence against the defenseless.

When mobs replace courts, democracy becomes theater. When the state fails to protect its weakest citizens, it signals to extremists that the cost of violence is low.

These were not random deaths. They were warnings.

India is watching because it must. The United States is watching because it still has the capacity and the responsibility to stand for justice at a moment when the meaning of human rights is being challenged and steadily eroded.

Adelle Nazarian is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.