By: Simran Sodhi, Guest Author, GSDN

As the world economy suffers as a result of the Middle East conflict, another outcome that is becoming rather obvious is the decline of the United States as the hegemon that seemed invincible and all powerful before Feb 28. Post World War II, the US has been regarded as the world’s foremost power in economic and military terms. Even in terms of diplomacy and the international arena, the multiple alliances that the US forged with Europe, countries in Asia and elsewhere made the US the world’s superpower.

The Middle East conflict, which is now a month old, has however revealed many of the cracks in this argument now. Militarily, the US has the world’s best armies, navies and air forces. Yet, even after a month of bombing Iran relentlessly, the US is not in a position to declare victory. The asymmetric warfare employed by Iran has brought down US planes, hit US military bases in the Gulf States and infrastructure facilities in the region. Most significantly, Iran has de facto closed the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of the world’s oil passes through. This has resulted in the oil prices crossing $100 a barrel and fears of inflation and recession spreading globally.

The US has fumed and issued threats and tantrums to the Iranians. But to no avail. The Strait remains closed and Iran is now allowing ships to pass through it on a case by case basis. Some reports suggest that Iran is now charging the ships that are allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz a transit fee in Chinese Yuan. This is a direct challenge to the supremacy of the dollar and a win for China. The fact that the US, with all its military might, has failed to get the Strait of Hormuz opened also is the beginning of the end of the US hegemony.

Further, the fact that the US’s NATO allies have refused to back the US on this war or become a party to it, further points to the alienation of the US from Europe. It would not be an overstatement to state at this point that the ongoing Middle East conflict has permanently damaged the EU-US alliance. US President Donald Trump, in his posts on social media, has criticized the EU and made fun of the EU leaders. His mimicry of leaders like the French President have further made this alliance ‘almost over’.

For the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, this conflict has exposed their vulnerabilities to Iran. It has also painfully revealed at how ineffective the US has been in protecting the Gulf States. Further, another harsh reality that has emerged is that for the US, the priority would always be the interests of Israel. This is despite the fact that the Gulf States have invested heavily in the US economy and have always looked upon the US as a reliable security guarantee. Whenever this conflict gets over, whether in the next few weeks or months, it will lead to the Gulf States doing a serios re-assessment of their security concerns. One can expect more bilateral defense pacts like the one inked by Saudi Arabia with Pakistan. In short, there is likely to a movement away from the US orbit as the Gulf will need to invest more domestically in defense and search for new partners in that direction. This will ensure that the Middle East moves away from the US sphere of influence, much like Europe.   

Much of the Asian nations are also watching this rapid change of international order. China is the biggest winner here. The more the US power is dented, the more it benefits the rise of China. For Russia, which is entangled in Ukraine for almost four years now, this conflict has both gains and losses. The gain again is watching the US depleting its military resources but the worry is Ukraine getting a foothold in the Gulf as it sells its anti-drone technology in the region which has been heavily attacked by the Iranian drones. Countries like India which have sought to cultivate deeper ties with the US have already done a re-think. India is today talking directly to Iran so that its ships can transit the Strait of Hormuz. For Japan, South Korea and others in the Indo-Pacific, the fear of an even stronger China will keep them in the neutral zone. But the failure of the US to protect the interests of the Gulf States has an important lesson for Japan and South Korea who rely heavily on US guarantees of security.

History teaches us that all empires rise and then decline. The world has witnessed the rise and fall of the Roman empires to the Ottomans and the British empire. Today, we sit at the beginning of the decline of the US hegemony and every nation-State must make fresh calculations about its role in a new world order. Whether this will usher in a multipolar world with players like Russia, China and the EU or an era led by a new superpower like China, only time will tell.

By: Khushbu Ahlawat, Consulting Editor, GSDN

Introduction

India–Bangladesh relations have long been considered a cornerstone of South Asian regional stability, rooted in shared history, geography, and cultural affinities. However, recent developments suggest a subtle but significant recalibration in Dhaka’s diplomatic messaging. Bangladesh’s renewed emphasis on “people-to-people ties” over purely state-centric engagement signals both a pragmatic shift and a response to evolving domestic and regional dynamics. This moment presents an opportunity to reassess the trajectory of bilateral relations—balancing strategic cooperation with public sentiment, economic interdependence, and political realities. In the 2025–2026 context, this shift is even more significant as bilateral ties are passing through a phase of “instability and interdependence”, where institutional cooperation remains intact but societal and political tensions are rising. Experts argue that this phase reflects a deeper structural transformation rather than a temporary diplomatic fluctuation. Within policy circles, this has increasingly been described as a transition from “government-led convergence” to “society-sensitive diplomacy.”

Context and Immediate Trigger

The article reflects statements from Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser urging deeper societal engagement between India and Bangladesh, while also acknowledging periodic misunderstandings at the political and administrative levels. This comes at a time when Bangladesh is navigating post-election political consolidation, India is recalibrating its Neighbourhood First Policy, and regional geopolitics is increasingly influenced by China’s growing footprint in South Asia.

The messaging is clear: while government-to-government relations remain stable, public perception and grassroots engagement need strengthening. This becomes more relevant after the 2024 political transition in Bangladesh, where leadership change created uncertainties in foreign policy orientation. In April 2025, a key bilateral meeting between Indian and Bangladeshi leadership on the sidelines of BIMSTEC addressed sensitive issues like Teesta water sharing, border killings, and minority concerns—highlighting both cooperation and friction.

Experts note that such engagements are “constructive but cautious,” reflecting a relationship that is cooperative yet under strain, with diplomacy increasingly shaped by domestic political compulsions on both sides.

Historical Foundations of India–Bangladesh Relations

The bilateral relationship has been shaped by several defining milestones. The Liberation War of 1971 remains the bedrock of goodwill, with India playing a decisive role in Bangladesh’s independence. The Ganga Water Treaty (1996) symbolized cooperative conflict resolution over shared river resources. The Land Boundary Agreement (2015) resolved decades-old enclave disputes and is often cited as one of the most successful peaceful border settlements globally. In addition, the 2015 maritime boundary settlement and continued cooperation through mechanisms like the Joint Rivers Commission demonstrate institutional depth in bilateral engagement. These foundational agreements continue to provide stability even during contemporary tensions, underscoring the resilience of bilateral frameworks.

Recent High-Level Visits and Diplomatic Engagements

Recent years have witnessed both continuity and recalibration in diplomatic engagements. Frequent prime ministerial and ministerial visits over the last decade strengthened cooperation in connectivity, trade, and energy. However, the post-2024 phase marked a turning point in tone rather than structure. In 2026, India welcomed the new political leadership in Bangladesh, with high-level congratulatory exchanges and invitations for official visits, signalling continuity in diplomatic outreach despite political change. At the same time, Bangladesh’s leadership has emphasized a “balanced and mutually beneficial relationship”, indicating a desire to diversify foreign policy while maintaining ties with India. Institutional dialogues such as the Joint Consultative Commission (JCC) and defence cooperation mechanisms continue, including joint exercises like Sampriti. However, analysts observe that while elite-level diplomacy remains active, public sentiment has become more volatile, creating a dual-layered dynamic in bilateral engagement.

Key Areas of Cooperation

India–Bangladesh cooperation remains multidimensional and structurally significant. Economically, India is among Bangladesh’s largest trading partners, with bilateral trade historically exceeding $18 billion, though recent estimates suggest stabilisation around $13–14 billion amid emerging tensions and policy adjustments. Connectivity projects such as the Akhaura–Agartala rail link and inland waterways aim to transform regional logistics into an integrated network linking India’s Northeast with Bangladesh and beyond. However, several projects have faced delays due to administrative bottlenecks, financing constraints, and land acquisition issues—highlighting the implementation gap in bilateral commitments. Energy cooperation remains one of the strongest pillars of the relationship. Notably, India’s electricity exports accounted for over 15% of Bangladesh’s power supply in 2025, reflecting deep interdependence despite political frictions. Experts highlight that such cooperation demonstrates a “functional resilience” in bilateral ties, where economic necessities and infrastructure dependencies sustain engagement even during diplomatic strain. Security cooperation also remains robust, particularly in counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and border management, contributing to stability in India’s Northeast and reinforcing mutual strategic trust.

Emerging Challenges and Frictions

Despite strong ties, several challenges persist and have intensified in recent years. The Teesta water dispute remains unresolved and continues to affect public perception in Bangladesh, where water security is directly linked to agricultural livelihoods and rural stability. Trade tensions have escalated notably. In 2025, both countries imposed restrictions on each other’s goods, affecting trade worth nearly $770 million, signalling a shift towards calibrated economic friction. Bangladesh’s restrictions on Indian exports and India’s retaliatory measures reflect growing protectionism and strategic signalling.

Additionally, India’s withdrawal of transshipment facilities for Bangladeshi exports in 2025 raised concerns about regional trade integration and increased logistical costs for Dhaka, potentially affecting long-term connectivity goals. Domestic political narratives further complicate ties. Incidents related to minority rights, migration debates, and border violence have triggered protests and influenced public opinion, making diplomacy more sensitive, politically charged, and perception-driven. Experts increasingly describe this phase as one of “narrative contestation” alongside strategic cooperation.

Shift Toward ‘People-to-People’ Diplomacy

Bangladesh’s recent emphasis highlights the importance of societal engagement as a stabilizing force in bilateral relations. Cultural exchanges, academic collaborations, tourism, and youth engagement are being promoted as instruments to rebuild trust and deepen long-term connectivity.

India’s continued scholarship programs and training initiatives for Bangladeshi officials reinforce this approach, while also contributing to capacity-building and institutional linkages. Experts argue that “state-centric diplomacy alone is insufficient in an era of politicised public opinion,” making people-to-people ties essential for long-term stability.

This shift also reflects an understanding that perception gaps at the grassroots level can undermine even the strongest strategic partnerships, necessitating a more inclusive and socially grounded diplomatic approach.An equally significant yet often overlooked factor shaping contemporary India–Bangladesh relations is the role of information ecosystems and digital narratives in influencing bilateral perceptions. In recent years, the rapid expansion of social media platforms, vernacular news outlets, and cross-border digital consumption has amplified the speed at which misinformation, political rhetoric, and identity-based narratives circulate between the two societies. This has contributed to periodic spikes in public distrust, even when official diplomatic channels remain stable and cooperative. Notably, digitally driven narratives around migration, border management, and cultural identity have begun to shape electoral discourse and public opinion in both countries, thereby constraining diplomatic flexibility. For policymakers, this presents a new challenge: managing not just traditional statecraft, but also perception diplomacy in the digital age. Addressing this requires institutional collaboration in media literacy, fact-checking partnerships, and responsible information-sharing mechanisms between the two governments. Furthermore, encouraging academic exchanges, journalist collaborations, and civil society dialogue can help counter polarising narratives and foster a more nuanced understanding of bilateral realities. In this context, the sustainability of India–Bangladesh relations will increasingly depend on their ability to navigate the intersection of diplomacy, technology, and public perception in an era of information volatility.

Geopolitical Dimension

The geopolitical dimension has become more pronounced in 2025–2026. China’s expanding presence in Bangladesh—through infrastructure investments, connectivity projects, and defence cooperation—has introduced a competitive dynamic in the region.

Analysts suggest that Bangladesh is pursuing a “multi-vector foreign policy”, balancing relations with India and China to maximise strategic and economic gains. As one expert notes, “Bangladesh needs both India and China in pragmatic terms,” highlighting a strategy of hedging rather than alignment.

For India, this underscores the need to strengthen engagement not only at the government level but also at the societal, economic, and developmental levels to remain a preferred and trusted partner.A critical yet underexplored dimension of India–Bangladesh relations in 2025–2026 is the growing salience of economic nationalism and supply chain recalibration within Bangladesh’s domestic policy framework. Dhaka is increasingly prioritising industrial self-reliance, export diversification, and resilience against external shocks, particularly in the wake of global disruptions and currency pressures. This has translated into a more cautious approach toward trade dependencies, including those with India, thereby subtly reshaping bilateral economic engagement. Simultaneously, Bangladesh’s ambition to transition from a Least Developed Country (LDC) to a developing economy by 2026 is influencing its external partnerships, pushing it to negotiate more competitive trade terms and safeguard domestic industries. From an Indian perspective, this shift necessitates a recalibration of engagement strategies—from a predominantly assistance-driven model to one centred on co-development, technology transfer, and value chain integration. Experts suggest that aligning with Bangladesh’s developmental priorities, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, digital services, and green infrastructure, could create a more sustainable and mutually beneficial partnership. This evolving economic posture underscores that future bilateral stability will depend not only on strategic alignment but also on economic adaptability and responsiveness to domestic transformation.

Strategic Significance for India

Bangladesh remains crucial for India’s Act East Policy, connectivity to the Northeast, and maritime security in the Bay of Bengal. Its geographic position makes it indispensable for regional integration, supply chains, and economic corridors. India has extended nearly $10 billion in Lines of Credit to Bangladesh, reflecting its role as a key development partner. However, delays in project implementation have raised concerns about delivery efficiency and institutional coordination. Strategically, a stable Bangladesh is essential for managing border security, migration issues, and regional stability. Experts describe the relationship as “too important to fail,” given the depth of interdependence across economic, strategic, and societal domains.

Way Forward

To sustain and deepen ties, both countries should focus on resolving pending issues like the Teesta dispute through political consensus while insulating critical areas of cooperation from domestic political fluctuations. Accelerating connectivity and infrastructure projects must remain a priority, alongside enhancing sub-regional cooperation frameworks such as BBIN.

Concluding a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) by 2026 could significantly boost economic integration, reduce trade barriers, and address structural imbalances. There is also a need to streamline regulatory frameworks, reduce non-tariff barriers, and modernise border infrastructure.

Expanding digital cooperation, education partnerships, and media engagement can help align public narratives and counter misinformation. Experts emphasize that the future of India–Bangladesh relations will depend on “balancing strategic interests with sensitivity to domestic political realities,” making diplomacy more adaptive, inclusive, and forward-looking.

To stabilise and future-proof India–Bangladesh relations amid evolving geopolitical and domestic pressures, a calibrated and forward-looking policy approach is essential. First, both countries must institutionalise dispute-resolution mechanisms, particularly on water-sharing and border management, to prevent periodic tensions from escalating into public mistrust. Second, accelerating the implementation of connectivity and infrastructure projects through time-bound delivery frameworks will help restore credibility and unlock regional economic potential.

Third, India should transition from a primarily credit-based engagement model to one focused on co-production, technology partnerships, and private sector integration, aligning with Bangladesh’s developmental aspirations. Fourth, both governments must invest in structured people-to-people initiatives, including academic exchanges, media collaborations, and youth engagement platforms, to counter misinformation and strengthen societal trust.

Fifth, enhancing coordination in the Bay of Bengal region through maritime security dialogues and sustainable development initiatives can reinforce shared strategic interests. Finally, both sides must adopt a “de-politicised cooperation framework”, insulating critical bilateral sectors from domestic political fluctuations to ensure continuity and long-term stability.

Conclusion

Bangladesh’s call for prioritizing “people-to-people ties” is not a departure from strong bilateral relations, but rather an evolution of them. It reflects a nuanced understanding that diplomacy must move beyond state corridors into societal connections. India and Bangladesh today stand at a mature phase of engagement—marked by deep cooperation but also requiring careful management of sensitivities. The developments of 2025–2026 clearly indicate that while economic and strategic interdependence remains strong, political and societal frictions are rising simultaneously, creating a complex but manageable dynamic. This duality defines the current phase of bilateral relations and will shape its future trajectory.

If both nations successfully integrate strategic interests with public engagement, the relationship can emerge as a model for regional cooperation—anchored not just in history and geography, but in shared aspirations for growth, stability, and mutual respect. In an increasingly complex geopolitical environment, the success of India–Bangladesh relations will depend on their ability to transform interdependence into trust, and cooperation into a resilient, future-oriented partnership.

By: Sonalika Singh, Consulting Editor, GSDN

The dramatic rescue of a United States airman deep within Iranian territory stands as one of the most complex and high-risk special operations missions in recent military history. Conducted under intense geopolitical tension and active hostilities, the operation combined advanced technology, elite military training, and rapid decision-making to retrieve a stranded weapons systems officer (WSO) from hostile terrain. More than a story of tactical success, the mission reflects the evolving nature of warfare, where precision, coordination, and resilience define outcomes in environments far beyond conventional battlefields. 

The episode began with the downing of an American F-15E Strike Eagle over southwestern Iran, an incident that immediately escalated tensions in an already volatile conflict. The aircraft, a twin-seat fighter designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, carried two crew members, a pilot and a WSO. While the pilot was located and extracted relatively quickly, the WSO landed in far more dangerous circumstances, isolated in mountainous terrain within Iran’s Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province. From that moment onward, the situation transformed into a race against time, as both American and Iranian forces sought to locate him. 

The urgency was not merely tactical but strategic. For Iran, capturing an American serviceman would have represented a significant political and psychological victory, offering leverage in an ongoing conflict marked by escalating strikes and counterstrikes. Tehran’s decision to publicly announce a bounty and mobilize local networks underscored the importance it placed on capturing the airman. For the United States, the imperative was equally clear no soldier could be left behind, particularly in enemy territory where capture could have far-reaching consequences for morale, diplomacy, and domestic politics. 

At the center of this unfolding drama was the airman himself. Trained under the rigorous Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) doctrine, he became the first line of defense in his own rescue. SERE training is designed precisely for such scenarios when a pilot is isolated behind enemy lines with limited resources and must rely on instinct, discipline, and adaptability. Reports indicate that the WSO demonstrated these principles effectively, moving through rugged terrain, avoiding detection, and maintaining communication readiness. His decision to climb to an elevated ridge near Dehdasht and activate an encrypted emergency beacon proved pivotal, transforming his uncertain position into a traceable point for rescue planners. 

The beacon became the operational anchor for the United States military. Once the signal was confirmed, planning shifted from search to extraction. The responsibility for the mission fell to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which assembled a multi-layered rescue package combining airpower, special forces, and intelligence assets. The operation involved elite units such as Delta Force and Pararescuemen from the 24th Special Tactics Squadron, supported by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment widely known as the “Night Stalkers.” These units represent the pinnacle of American military capability, trained specifically for high-risk, time-sensitive missions in hostile environments. 

Air support played a critical role in enabling the operation. A-10 Warthog aircraft provided close air support, targeting advancing Iranian forces and establishing a defensive perimeter around the extraction zone. These aircraft, known for their durability and precision in ground attack roles, were instrumental in suppressing threats from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij militia units converging on the area. Meanwhile, HC-130J tankers ensured sustained aerial operations by refueling aircraft involved in the mission, highlighting the logistical complexity required to maintain such an operation deep within enemy territory. 

The execution phase of the mission was marked by both precision and unpredictability. Special operations forces were inserted under the cover of darkness, navigating a highly contested environment where the risk of detection and engagement was constant. Reports suggest that the United States established a temporary “fire zone” around the WSO’s location, using precision strikes to neutralize potential threats and restrict enemy movement. This approach created a controlled operational space within hostile territory, allowing rescue teams to maneuver with reduced risk. 

However, the mission did not proceed without complications. One of the most striking developments was the reported malfunction and subsequent destruction of two C-130 transport aircraft at a forward arming and refueling point inside Iran. Rather than risk sensitive equipment falling into enemy hands, American forces deliberately destroyed the aircraft. This decision reflects a critical aspect of modern military operations, the prioritization of technological security alongside personnel recovery. The destruction of these aircraft echoed historical precedents, notably the failed Operation Eagle Claw in 1980, yet with a key difference the mission ultimately succeeded despite the setback. 

The extraction itself unfolded under sustained enemy fire, transforming what was intended as a rapid “get-in, get-out” operation into a prolonged engagement. Iranian forces, including local militias and possibly irregularfighters, engaged the rescue teams, forcing them to adapt in real time. The presence of small arms of fire reported strikes on helicopters, and the need for continued air support illustrates the intensity of the firefight. Despite these challenges, the rescue teams successfully secured the WSO and evacuated him from Iranian territory without any reported American fatalities. 

The success of the mission carries significant implications for both military strategy and geopolitical dynamics. From a tactical perspective, it demonstrates the capability of American special operations forces to conduct complex missions deep within hostile environments. The integration of intelligence, airpower, and ground operations highlights the effectiveness of a networked approach to warfare, where multiple assets operate in coordination to achieve a single objective. The role of intelligence, particularly in locating the airman, underscores the importance of advanced surveillance and tracking capabilities in modern conflicts. 

At the same time, the mission reveals the inherent risks and limitations of such operations. The need to deploy elite forces, multiple aircraft, and extensive logistical support for the recovery of a single individual underscores the high stakes involved. It also highlights the vulnerability of even advanced military systems in contested environments, where unexpected challenges can quickly alter the course of an operation. The destruction of aircraft, the engagement with local forces, and the prolonged duration of the mission all point to the complexity of operating in a region with active resistance and uncertain conditions. 

From a geopolitical standpoint, the rescue operation reinforces the broader dynamics of the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran. The downing of the F-15E itself signals the presence of effective Iranian air defense capabilities, challenging assumptions about air superiority. The subsequent rescue mission, while successful, underscores the extent to which the conflict has escalated, requiring direct military engagement on Iranian soil. This escalation carries implications for regional stability, particularly in relation to critical areas such as the Strait of Hormuz, where tensions have already impacted global energy markets. 

The psychological dimension of the operation is equally significant. For the United States, the successful rescue reinforces a longstanding military ethos, the commitment to recover personnel under any circumstances. This principle serves as a powerful motivator for service members, reinforcing trust in the institution and its leadership. For Iran, the inability to capture the airman represents a missed opportunity to gain strategic leverage, particularly in a conflict where symbolic victories can carry substantial weight. 

The narrative surrounding the operation has also been shaped by differing accounts from both sides. While American officials have emphasized the success and precision of the mission, Iranian authorities have contested these claims, asserting that the operation was disrupted and that multiple American aircraft were destroyed. These conflicting narratives reflect the broader information dynamics of modern warfare, where control over perception is as important as control over territory. 

Ultimately, the rescue of the stranded airman stands as a testament to the capabilities and complexities of contemporary military operations. It illustrates how individual survival, advanced training, and coordinated force projection intersect in moments of crisis. The airman’s reliance on SERE training, the precision of the rescue forces, and the adaptability of the mission all contributed to an outcome that could easily have been far more costly. 

Yet, the operation also serves as a reminder of the broader context in which such missions occur. It highlights the fragile balance between capability and risk, success, and escalation. While the rescue itself may be viewed as a tactical triumph, it is embedded within a larger conflict that continues to evolve, carrying implications far beyond the immediate circumstances of a single mission. 

Hence, the US pilot rescue in Iran is not merely a story of daring and heroism, but a reflection of the realities of modern warfare. It encapsulates the intersection of human resilience, technological sophistication, and geopolitical tension, offering a glimpse into the challenges and possibilities that define military operations in the twenty-first century. 

By: Prachi Kushwah, Research Analyst, GSDN

The political slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) has emerged as one of the most influential and debated ideas in modern United States politics. Popularized during the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, the phrase has grown far beyond a campaign tagline into a broader ideological movement. Since Trump formally announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015, MAGA has represented a call for economic revival, national sovereignty, and cultural reassertion. However, the central question remains whether MAGA has fulfilled its promise as a dream realized or whether it continues as a work-in-progress shaped by political, economic, and global challenges.

At its core, MAGA reflects a sense of dissatisfaction among sections of the American population who believe that the country’s global standing and domestic prosperity have declined. The movement appeals to nostalgia, invoking an era when the United States was perceived to have stronger economic dominance, stable industrial growth, and clearer national identity. Yet, translating this aspiration into policy outcomes has proven complex, raising questions about feasibility, inclusiveness, and long-term sustainability.

Origins and Ideological Foundations of MAGA

The origins of MAGA lie in a blend of populism, nationalism, and economic protectionism. While the phrase itself has historical precedents, its modern articulation during the 2016 United States presidential election transformed it into a cohesive political doctrine. The campaign emphasized reducing dependency on foreign economies, strengthening domestic industries, and prioritizing American workers.

A significant aspect of the ideology is its opposition to what it terms as “globalism,” which is viewed as responsible for outsourcing jobs and weakening national borders. By advocating for stronger immigration controls and trade protections, MAGA positioned itself as a corrective force against decades of liberal economic policies. This ideological framing resonated particularly with working-class communities affected by deindustrialization and wage stagnation.

However, critics argue that the ideological foundation of MAGA relies heavily on selective historical interpretation. The notion of returning to a “great” past often overlooks structural inequalities and global interdependence that define the modern world. As such, while the vision is compelling to its supporters, its practical implementation remains contested.

Economic Policies: Promise and Performance

Economic reform stands at the heart of the MAGA agenda. One of the most notable legislative achievements was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed into law on December 22, 2017. The policy aimed to reduce corporate tax rates and stimulate economic investment. Proponents claim that it boosted business confidence and contributed to job creation, while critics highlight that a significant portion of the benefits accrued to corporations and high-income groups.

Trade policy also underwent substantial changes. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), originally implemented on January 1, 1994, was replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020. This renegotiation sought to create fairer conditions for American workers, especially in manufacturing sectors. Additionally, tariffs imposed on imports from countries such as China were intended to reduce trade deficits and encourage domestic production.

While these measures produced mixed outcomes, they also introduced economic uncertainties. Retaliatory tariffs affected exporters, and supply chain disruptions created challenges for industries reliant on global networks. The economic trajectory was further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic, declared a global crisis on March 11, 2020, which required stimulus measures exceeding US$ 2 trillion. This demonstrated that while MAGA policies aimed for self-reliance, global events continued to shape economic realities.

Immigration and Border Security

Immigration policy has been one of the most defining aspects of the MAGA movement. A central promise was the construction of a border wall to prevent illegal immigration. On January 25, 2017, an executive order was issued to begin this process. The policy symbolized a broader commitment to national security and control over borders.

In addition to physical infrastructure, the administration introduced stricter enforcement measures, including changes to asylum rules and travel restrictions for certain countries. Supporters viewed these steps as necessary to protect jobs and ensure safety, while critics argued that they undermined humanitarian values and damaged the country’s global image.

The debate over immigration under MAGA reflects a deeper ideological divide. It raises questions about identity, diversity, and the balance between security and openness. While the movement emphasizes sovereignty, its long-term implications for a nation historically shaped by immigration remain uncertain.

Foreign Policy and Global Positioning

MAGA’s foreign policy is characterized by the principle of “America First,” which prioritizes national interests over multilateral commitments. This approach led to significant decisions such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, announced on June 1, 2017. The rationale was to protect domestic industries from regulatory constraints, though it drew criticism for undermining global climate efforts.

Diplomatic strategies also shifted, including direct engagement with adversaries. A notable example was the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un on June 12, 2018. While it marked a historic moment in diplomacy, its long-term effectiveness remains debated.

Relations with allies were also redefined, with increased emphasis on shared financial responsibilities within international organizations. This recalibration reflected a broader attempt to reshape global leadership dynamics, though it sometimes strained traditional alliances.

Cultural and Political Impact

Beyond policies, MAGA has significantly influenced the cultural and political landscape of the United States. It has mobilized a strong base of supporters who view it as a defense of national identity and traditional values. At the same time, it has intensified political polarization, contributing to divisions across social and ideological lines.

The United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020, demonstrated the enduring strength of the movement. Despite electoral defeat, MAGA continued to shape political discourse and party dynamics. Events such as those on January 6, 2021, further highlighted the intensity of political engagement associated with the movement.

MAGA has also redefined the direction of the Republican Party, aligning it more closely with populist and nationalist themes. This transformation suggests that its influence extends beyond a single leader, embedding itself within broader political structures.

Achievements and Criticisms

Evaluating MAGA requires a balanced perspective. On one hand, it successfully brought attention to critical issues such as trade imbalances, industrial decline, and border security. It demonstrated the power of political messaging in mobilizing large segments of the population.

On the other hand, the movement has faced criticism for policy inconsistencies and unintended consequences. Economic measures such as tariffs created disruptions, while foreign policy decisions sometimes weakened alliances. Additionally, critics argue that its rhetoric has contributed to social divisions and challenged democratic norms.

These contrasting outcomes indicate that while MAGA has achieved certain objectives, it has also generated new challenges, reinforcing the idea that it remains an evolving project rather than a completed vision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, “Make America Great Again” represents both an aspiration and an ongoing process. It is a dream in its promise to restore national strength and identity, and a work-in-progress in its practical implementation. The movement has reshaped political discourse, influenced policy decisions, and mobilized millions of supporters.

However, its long-term success depends on its ability to address structural challenges, adapt to global realities, and balance competing priorities. As of 2026, MAGA continues to evolve, reflecting the complexities of governance in a rapidly changing world. Whether it ultimately fulfills its promise or remains a contested vision will depend on how its principles are translated into sustainable and inclusive outcomes.

By:Sonalika Singh, Consulting Editor, GSDN

The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), unveiled during the G20 Summit in New Delhi in September 2023, was envisioned as a transformative transcontinental initiative designed to reshape global trade, connectivity, and economic cooperation. Conceived as a multi-modal network integrating ports, railways, shipping lanes, energy pipelines, and digital infrastructure, IMEC aimed to connect India with Europe via the Gulf region, offering a faster, more efficient, and strategically diversified alternative to traditional maritime routes such as the Suez Canal. Nearly three years since its announcement, the corridor remains one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects of the 21st century, yet its progress reflects a complex interplay of geopolitical realities, economic constraints, and evolving strategic priorities. The status of IMEC is best understood as a project in transition neither stalled nor fully operational, but gradually evolving through phased development, regional leadership, and adaptive strategies. 

At its core, IMEC represents a convergence of strategic interests among its founding members India, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Union. The corridor is structured around two principal segments: the Eastern Corridor linking India to the Gulf, and the Northern Corridor connecting the Gulf to Europe via rail and maritime networks. The initiative is embedded within the broader framework of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), a G7-led effort aimed at addressing global infrastructure gaps through sustainable and transparent financing mechanisms. From the outset, IMEC was positioned not merely as a connectivity project but as a geopolitical and economic statement an alternative model to existing infrastructure paradigms, particularly China’s Belt and Road Initiative. 

However, the trajectory of IMEC since its launch has been shaped significantly by external disruptions. The most immediate and consequential setback emerged from the escalation of conflict in West Asia, particularly the Israel–Hamas war beginning in late 2023. This conflict directly affected the viability of the Northern Corridor, which relies on political stability and cooperation across countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel. The deterioration of diplomatic normalization efforts in the region, which had been a foundational assumption for IMEC’s design, introduced uncertainty into project timelines and investor confidence. As a result, progress on key segments of the corridor slowed, and the project entered a phase of strategic recalibration. 

Despite these challenges, IMEC has not lost momentum entirely. Instead, its development has become more regionally concentrated and incrementally structured. One of the most notable areas of progress has been the strengthening of bilateral and trilateral frameworks among key stakeholders, particularly between India and the United Arab Emirates. The signing of the Intergovernmental Framework Agreement (IGFA) between these two countries marked a significant step toward operationalizing elements of the corridor. This agreement focuses on building a joint logistics platform, enhancing digital connectivity, and streamlining supply chain processes. It reflects a pragmatic approach to IMEC’s implementation, prioritizing segments that are politically stable and economically viable while deferring to more complex components. 

Parallel to diplomatic efforts, there have been tangible developments in infrastructure planning and early-stage construction. By 2025, groundwork had begun on select components of the corridor, including port upgrades, logistics hubs, and preliminary rail link planning in the Gulf region. These developments are closely aligned with national economic strategies of Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and the UAE’s Operation 300bn. Both countries have leveraged IMEC as an extension of their domestic transformation agendas, investing heavily in port modernization, industrial zones, and digital infrastructure. This alignment has effectively positioned the Gulf region as the operational nucleus of IMEC, even as broader geopolitical uncertainties persist. 

The role of Gulf economies in sustaining IMEC’s progress cannot be overstated. The UAE and Saudi Arabia, situated at the geographic center of the corridor, have emerged as key drivers of its development. Their sovereign wealth funds, including entities such as Mubadala, ADQ, and the Public Investment Fund, have increased investments in logistics, energy, and technology sectors that are integral to IMEC’s vision. These investments are not merely preparatory but transformative, aiming to convert the region from a transit hub into a production and innovation ecosystem. Industrial zones such as Khalifa Industrial Zone Abu Dhabi (KIZAD) and King Abdullah Economic City are being developed as integrated nodes that combine manufacturing, logistics, and digital capabilities, thereby embedding IMEC within broader economic diversification strategies. 

Another critical dimension of IMEC’s status is the advancement of its digital and energy components. Unlike physical infrastructure, which is more susceptible to geopolitical disruptions, digital connectivity projects have progressed with relatively fewer constraints. Plans for undersea data cables, cross-border data centers, and digital trade platforms are moving forward, supported by the Gulf’s investments in artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure. Similarly, the corridor’s energy ambitions, particularly in green hydrogen and renewable energy, have gained traction. Projects aimed at linking renewable energy grids and facilitating cross-border energy trade are being explored, with initiatives such as the proposed India-UAE undersea electricity interconnector reflecting the corridor’s long-term vision of sustainable energy integration. 

Financial considerations remain a central challenge in IMEC’s implementation. The corridor is estimated to require substantial investment, with broader PGII targets aiming to mobilize up to $600 billion by 2027. However, the absence of a clearly defined financial roadmap and cost-sharing mechanism among participating countries has slowed progress. High global interest rates, economic uncertainty, and competing investment priorities have further complicated funding efforts. In response, there has been a growing emphasis on leveraging public-private partnerships, sovereign wealth funds, and multilateral development banks to bridge financing gaps. The involvement of institutions such as the World Bank and the European Union’s Global Gateway initiative is expected to play a crucial role in mobilizing resources and ensuring project viability. 

The interplay between geopolitical dynamics and economic considerations continues to shape IMEC’s trajectory. Trade tensions, particularly between India and the United States, have introduced additional complexities. The imposition of tariffs and shifts in trade policy have affected investor sentiment and delayed certain collaborative initiatives. At the same time, strategic cooperation in areas such as defense and technology has remainedintact, highlighting the nuanced nature of bilateral relationships within the corridor’s framework. This duality underscores the importance of selective cooperation and targeted policy adjustments in sustaining IMEC’s progress. 

From a broader perspective, IMEC’s status reflects a shift from a grand, unified vision to a more modular and adaptive approach. Instead of pursuing simultaneous development across all segments, stakeholders are focusing on achievable milestones that build credibility and momentum. This phased strategy involves prioritizing politically stable routes, advancing digital and energy projects, and gradually expanding the corridor’s scope as conditions improve. The emphasis on incremental progress is not a retreat from ambition but a recognition of the complexities inherent in transnational infrastructure projects. 

The competitive landscape also influences IMEC’s development. Established trade routes such as the Suez Canal continue to dominate global shipping due to their reliability and cost-effectiveness. While IMEC promises significant reductions in transit time and logistics costs, these benefits remain contingent on full operationalization. In the interim, the corridor is being positioned as a complementary route rather than a direct replacement, offering diversification and resilience in global supply chains. This strategic positioning is particularly relevant in the context of recent disruptions, such as the Suez Canal blockage in 2021 and ongoing instability in maritime routes, which have highlighted the need for alternative pathways. 

Institutional mechanisms and governance structures are emerging as critical components of IMEC’s implementation. Discussions around establishing a dedicated IMEC Secretariat, sector-specific task forces, and a global corridor forum indicate a growing recognition of the need for coordinated planning and execution. Think tanks, financial institutions, and industry stakeholders are increasingly being involved in shaping the corridorroadmap, conducting feasibility studies, and addressing regulatory challenges. These efforts aim to create a cohesive framework that aligns diverse national interests while ensuring operational efficiency. 

Looking ahead, the timeline for IMEC’s full realization remains uncertain but not indefinite. Analysts suggest a phased recovery and development trajectory spanning the latter half of the decade. The period between 2025 and 2026 is expected to focus on stabilization and foundational investments, particularly in the India-Gulf segment. The subsequent phase, extending to 2028, may see expanded multilateral participation and the scaling of logistics and energy projects. By the end of the decade, IMEC could evolve into a partially operational corridor, integrating physical, digital, and energy networks into a cohesive system. 

Therefore, the status of the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor reflects both the promise and the complexity of large-scale international infrastructure initiatives. While geopolitical disruptions and financial uncertainties have slowed down its initial momentum, the project continues to advance through targeted investments, regional leadership, and adaptive strategies. The Gulf region has emerged as the central engine driving progress, supported by evolving partnerships and incremental implementation. IMEC’s journey underscores the importance of resilience, flexibility, and sustained cooperation in navigating the challenges of global connectivity projects. As the corridor continues to take shape, its ultimate success will depend on the ability of its stakeholders to align strategic interests, mobilize resources, and maintain a long-term commitment to a shared vision of economic integration and sustainable development. 

By: Ankit Raj, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Western Hemisphere has been at the centre stage of the United States foreign policy, economic strategies, and national security. The chronological spread of this geographic region, which starts in Canada in the north and extends to Central America and the Caribbean, as well as the southern end of South America, is much more than just ease of access to the American border. The relevance of the Western Hemisphere remains critically important to the United States; to see this, one needs to consider several aspects of this relationship and how the progress of other nations directly affects the prosperity, safety, and values of the American nation.

Historical Context and Strategic Vision

The history of U.S. intervention in the Western Hemisphere dates back to the early nineteenth century. On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine, stating that the European powers should not again colonise the independent nations of the Americas. The doctrine made the hemisphere one of the United States’ fields of special interest and responsibility.

With the inaugural address on March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the perception of non-intervention and mutual respect when dealing with Latin American countries, and the Good Neighbor Policy was announced. This strategy was aimed at establishing a sense of trust and collaboration following the decades-long American military conflicts in the Caribbean and Central America.

Economic Integration and Trade Relationships

Perhaps the strongest argument for the Western Hemisphere’s importance to the United States is the profound economic interdependence that has developed over decades. The region is a massive market of American products and services, as well as the source of critical imports that support the American economy.

In January 1994, NAFTA came into effect, establishing one of the largest free trade zones in the world and interconnecting the economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Over the course of NAFTA’s existence, the three countries tripled their trade, reaching about $ 1.3 trillion annually.

On July 1, 2020, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA, renewing trade regulations for the digital age, reinforcing labor and environmental protections, and strengthening intellectual property protection.

Canada is always among America’s top trading partners, with which it trades bilaterally over $ 700 billion per year. These two countries have the longest undefended border in the world and have adapted their supply chains across automotive manufacturing, aerospace, energy, and agriculture. 

Mexico has emerged as America’s largest trading partner in recent years, with trade volumes surpassing those with China. International Mexican factories are assembling products with American parts, providing employment on both sides of the border.

The United States has been seeking trade agreements with other countries in the Western Hemisphere beyond North America. The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) entered into force for El Salvador on March 1, 2006, followed by Honduras and Nicaragua on April 1, 2006, Guatemala on July 1, 2006, the Dominican Republic on March 1, 2007, and Costa Rica on January 1, 2009. This agreement made the markets more open and strengthened economic relations with Central America and the Caribbean.

American companies gain access to export markets and investment opportunities in South American countries. Being the biggest economy in South America, Brazil has more than 200 million consumers. Chile has maintained a free trade agreement with the United States since January 1, 2004, facilitating billions of dollars in bilateral trade.  On May 15, 2012, Colombia’s free trade agreement with the United States took effect, opening new opportunities in both countries.

Latin America provides a large share of imported coffee, cocoa, bananas, and tropical fruits, among other products, that cannot be produced in the United States.  At the same time, American agricultural exports such as corn, soyabeans, wheat, and meat products have huge markets across South America.

Energy Security and Natural Resources.

Another aspect of significance to the Western Hemisphere and American interests is energy security. The energy resources and supply networks available in the region strengthen U.S. energy security and minimise its reliance on regions that may become unstable at any time.

Canada, the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the United States, supplies more than 4 million barrels per day. This is a safe, trustworthy source of supply by a solid democratic neighbor possessing common values and regulatory systems that do not clash. Energy relations will not be limited to oil but also to natural gas, electricity, and nuclear power generation using uranium.

Mexico also has a two-sided presence in the North American energy markets. Although Mexico is a major exporter of crude oil to the United States, it is also a major importer of natural gas and refined petroleum products from America. 

Venezuela is the country with the world’s largest crude oil reserves, estimated at more than 300 billion barrels. Despite the devastating effects of political and economic crises on Venezuelan oil output over the last several years, the possible role of such sources in the hemisphere’s long-term energy security cannot be ruled out.

The huge offshore oil deposits in pre-salt geological reservoirs have made Brazil a major oil producer. The Lula oil field, discovered in 2006 and producing in the latter years, showcased Brazil as an energy giant.

In addition to hydrocarbons, there are vast reserves of minerals needed for modern technology, defense, and the clean energy transition in the Western Hemisphere. Chile is the world leader in copper, which is used in the wiring of electrical systems, electronics, and renewable energy systems. A portion of the world’s lithium is found in the lithium triangle of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia; the triangle encompasses over 50% of all known lithium reserves. That is the primary component of electric vehicles and energy storage, representing rechargeable batteries.

Rare earth elements, important for high-tech applications and national security, are found in deposits throughout the Americas. As the United States seeks to reduce its dependence on Chinese sources for critical minerals, developing Western Hemisphere supplies becomes strategically important.

Immigration, Demographics, and Human Connections  

The Latin American and Caribbean migration has a significant impact on American society, creating demographic and cultural ties that bind the hemisphere together. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2023, over 62.3 million Hispanic or Latino people were living in the United States, and this group comprises approximately 19 percent of the total population. This makes Hispanics the nation’s largest ethnic minority group.

These demographic relations create vast family connections that cross national borders. Millions of American citizens and residents are close to their relatives living in Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. Immigration from the Western Hemisphere addresses critical labor market needs in the United States. The agriculture, construction, hospitality, food service, and healthcare industries are full of workers born in Latin America.  

The remittances sent by immigrants working in the United States to their families in their home countries constitute a large flow of funds. According to the World Bank (2023, around 150 billion dollars of remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean, which is a crucial economic aid to millions of households. In countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti, remittances account for significant portions of their GDP, even exceeding foreign direct investment and development aid.  

Still, there are major challenges in policies associated with irregular migration and asylum seekers. The humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border has become the subject of sharp political discourse, and it has prompted the need to collaborate amongst states to control the migration flows in a way that is humane and does not jeopardize border security.  

Security Challenges and Cooperative Responses  

The issue of security can provide powerful justifications for a lasting U.S. presence in the Western Hemisphere. The transnational criminal gangs directly affect the American communities by trafficking drugs, human beings, trafficking weapons, and gang violence.  

Production of cocaine in the Andean region of South America continues to be high even after decades of counter-narcotics efforts. Colombia has always been the largest producer of cocaine worldwide; these days, Peru and Bolivia also keep a significant cultivation and production potential.  

Other transnational organized crimes like human trafficking, illegal trade in wild animals and fish, and money laundering, among others, have to be met by cooperation within the hemisphere. Corruption and financial crimes are undermining governance and economic progress, while also aiding more criminal activity.  

Democratic Government and Human Rights.  

The United States has both an idealistic and a realistic agenda on pushing democratic governance and human rights across the Western Hemisphere. Democracies are more likely to be stable, thriving, and cooperative allies, thereby creating regional conditions that can favor American interests.  

Inter- american democratic charter, which was signed by member countries of the OAS on 11 September 2001 in Lima, Peru, binds signatory countries to uphold democratic institutions and to act collectively in response to a threat to democracy in any member state. This charter has made democracy a prerequisite for the region’s stability and prosperity.  

However, democratic leadership is very difficult in many countries. Since Venezuela has fallen under the authoritarian rule of Nicolás, the country has degenerated into a regime of human rights abuses, observed economic decline, and witnessed the biggest refugee crisis ever witnessed in the recent history of the Western Hemisphere. Since 2015, over 7 million of their citizens have fled, posing a humanitarian problem for neighboring states.  

One-party communist rule still persists in Cuba, though since President Miguel Díaz-Canel took office on 19 April 2018, there have been small-scale economic reforms. These changes are accompanied by human rights constraints, political oppression, and economic stagnation.   

Geopolitical Competition and External Actors

China is offering more opportunities and posing more challenges to the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Since 2000, the Chinese investment in the infrastructure, mining, agriculture, and technology in Latin America has increased manifold. The Belt and Road Initiative has engaged 19 Latin American and Caribbean countries in seeking development funding.  

Between 2005 and 2023, Chinese loans to Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, among others, have reached well above 140 billion dollars, usually for future commodity supply or natural resource concessions. Although this financing meets the infrastructure gaps and development requirements, it also creates dependency and potential political leverage for Beijing.

Chinese telecommunications firms, especially Huawei Technologies, have penetrated deeply into Latin America, developing 5G and selling equipment to telecommunications companies. The United States has raised cybersecurity risks and the potential for surveillance inherent in Chinese technology infrastructure.  

Russia has also tried to increase its influence in the hemisphere mainly by selling weapons, energy, and military relations with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Power projection has been demonstrated by the Russian military aircraft and naval ships that have been exercising in the Caribbean.  

Conclusion  

The United States is heavily concerned with the Western Hemisphere because the region is geographically close to the country, and consequently, the two have strong economic and demographic ties, which are security-dependent, and share values that define American prosperity and security.  

With the growing competition around the globe and the transnational conditions of climate change, migration, pandemics, and organized crime covering all other national boundaries, the United States cannot afford to neglect its own hemisphere. A successful, democratic, and safe Western Hemisphere will advance major American interests and promote global stability and growth. The future of U.S. engagement in the Americas will determine not only regional outcomes but also America’s capacity to lead globally in an increasingly complex world.