As the United States gears up for the November 5 presidential election, Donald Trump’s recent tweet condemning violence against religious minorities in Bangladesh has sparked intense reactions and widespread debate. With Trump hinting at his potential priorities if re-elected, and Kamala Harris seen as his primary challenger, his remarks have added an unexpected international angle to an already charged campaign season. While Trump’s critics dismiss the tweet as a political maneuver aimed at courting votes, others interpret it as a signal of his commitment to international religious freedom and a robust foreign policy stance.

With predictions of a Donald Trump victory on the November 5 election over a comparatively weak and inexperienced Kamala Harris, his October 31 tweet condemning “barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities” in Bangladesh has sent shockwaves through the country’s ruling elite. While supporters of the Democratic Party and advocates for regime change in Dhaka attempt to dismiss the tweet as a mere “political stunt”, it’s essential to consider the potential implications for Bangladesh, regardless of whether Trump or Kamala ultimately wins the election.

On the occasion of Diwali, Trump tweeted:

“I strongly condemn the barbaric violence against Hindus, Christians, and other minorities who are getting attacked and looted by mobs in Bangladesh, which remains in a total state of chaos.

It would have never happened on my watch. Kamala and Joe have ignored Hindus across the world and in America. They have been a disaster from Israel to Ukraine to our own Southern Border, but we will Make America Strong Again and bring back Peace through Strength!

We will also protect Hindu Americans against the anti-religion agenda of the radical left. We will fight for your freedom. Under my administration, we will also strengthen our great partnership with India and my good friend, Prime Minister Modi.

Kamala Harris will destroy your small businesses with more regulations and higher taxes. By contrast, I cut taxes, cut regulations, unleashed American energy, and built the greatest economy in history. We will do it again, bigger and better than ever before – and we will Make America Great Again”.

Anyone with a basic understanding of geopolitics and the authority of a US president can see the core message in this tweet. Known as a man of action, Trump’s words clearly hint at the priorities that would guide his second term. In addition to raising concerns about the persecution of Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh, Trump emphasizes key policy areas such as border security, the Biden-Kamala administration’s mishandling of issues in Ukraine and Israel, support for small businesses, and opposition to higher taxes.

There is little reason to view Trump’s message as a mere “political stunt”. Rather, it seems more likely that these issues would become priority actions from his first day in office. Those unfamiliar with the pledges of Trump and the Republican Party may underestimate the determination of Trump, as well as key elements of the US government, including the Pentagon and CIA, to address what he describes as the “mess” created by the Biden-Kamala administration. The Trump administration would likely aim to demonstrate how Biden and Kamala have allegedly undermined America’s national, regional, and global interests through impulsive decisions, many of which are seen as legacies of the Obama and Clinton eras.

The Biden-Kamala administration’s proxy war in Ukraine has not only strained America’s finances but also forced cuts to the defense budget. According to media reports, the US military currently lacks sufficient ammunition to sustain a war for more than a few days. Meanwhile, the administration’s preoccupation with Ukraine and its policies on immigration have created significant security risks, with reports of hardened criminals, terrorists, and traffickers infiltrating the US and contributing to rising crime and terror threats. Analysts suggest that if Kamala Harris wins the election through alleged manipulation or election irregularities, these issues will likely worsen, as Kamala lacks the capability to address America’s mounting debt crisis, which currently exceeds US$35 trillion. An effective administration under Trump is seen as essential to rescuing America from potential financial collapse.

Some Democratic Party supporters and recipients of George Soros’ funding have downplayed Trump’s tweet, claiming it contains “misleading information” about the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. They argue that even if Trump wins on November 5, he would be unable to take action against Bangladesh or its “revolutionary” government led by Muhammad Yunus, due to “checks and balances” on presidential power. They further assert that because Yunus maintains good relations with both major US political parties, Trump would eventually align with him.

However, my own analysis diverges from this perspective. During Yunus’ September visit to the US, he received recognition from the Clinton Global Initiative, where former President Bill Clinton publicly endorsed Yunus and the “protestors” involved in the campaign against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Yunus also met Alexander Soros, son of George Soros. These engagements strongly suggest that regime change in Bangladesh is a blueprint devised by the Clintons, Obama, and Soros. Yunus did not engage with any Republican leaders or candidates, including Trump. This could deter Trump and his allies from extending support to Yunus.

Supporters of Yunus may attempt to frame him as an influential leader with bipartisan connections, yet the reality appears otherwise. Yunus’ primary support base lies with the Clintons, as he is a significant donor to the Clinton Foundation.

We know that, during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was accused of selling influence in exchange for donations to the Foundation. Given this context, the Clinton-Yunus relationship seems transactional. If Yunus enjoyed broad bipartisan support, then during his most difficult times with the Awami League government and his conflicts with Hasina, we might have seen the Democrats or even the Republicans rallying in his defense. Yet, no Congressional resolution in his favor was ever introduced.

If Trump wins on November 5, it is likely he would implement severe measures against Bangladesh, potentially including broad restrictions on the country or sanctions targeting specific individuals. Conversely, if Kamala Harris wins, her administration may not continue Biden’s policy on Bangladesh. As someone of Indian heritage, Kamala might seek to bolster ties with India and leverage Bangladesh strategically in coordination with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Historically, Washington has often worked with regional partners to influence third countries. For instance, Pakistan played a pivotal role in America’s Afghanistan operations. Similarly, Kamala Harris, if elected, could seek India as a partner to engage Bangladesh.

India’s role could become even more crucial for Bangladeshi authorities. However, after Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, some figures in Dhaka have publicly labeled India as the “Number One Enemy” of Bangladesh, signaling a potential diplomatic challenge. If this hostility toward India continues, it could have profound consequences for Bangladesh’s international standing.

Whether Donald Trump’s tweet on Bangladesh is a calculated political move or a reflection of his genuine foreign policy priorities, it has undeniably stirred conversations on religious freedom and human rights in South Asia. As the US election approaches, the implications of either a Trump or Kamala victory could shape US-Bangladesh relations in significant ways, especially in light of Trump’s explicit stance on protecting minority communities and strengthening alliances. For Bangladesh, this signals a need for careful navigation of international relations and a heightened awareness of shifting dynamics within the US political landscape. Regardless of the election outcome, these discussions around Bangladesh’s treatment of minorities and its geopolitical stance will likely persist, highlighting the intricate ties between domestic governance and international scrutiny.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel