QAZVIN, IRAN – During an official visit to the Iranian city of Qazvin, Bangladesh’s ambassador underscored what he described as deep cultural affinities between Iran and Bangladesh, noting that Bangladeshi citizens strongly identify with Iranian culture. While at first appearing to be a gesture of diplomatic goodwill, the ambassador’s remarks are significant amid widespread international concern over political repression and rights abuses in both countries.
Bangladesh and Iran have consistently ranked poorly in global indices that measure press freedom, judicial independence, and human rights. In both countries, authorities maintain rigorous controls over the media and public discourse. Journalists often face harassment, arrest, or violence for challenging official narratives, and both societies are routinely criticized for undermining legal due process and denying basic rights to minorities, women, and the LGBT community. International advocacy organizations, including Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, have repeatedly highlighted these issues in their annual reports.
Analysts note that references to ‘cultural similarity’ between the two countries often extend beyond traditional customs or shared history. They point to the political structures that unify the ruling elites: both governments have increasingly centralized power, silenced dissent, and constrained political opposition through laws and informal pressure. In Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an internationally sanctioned terror organization, exerts significant control over the judiciary, media, and economy, while in Bangladesh, opposition parties and critical voices frequently face arbitrary detention and restricted civic space.
This context is vital given Iran’s efforts to expand its network of regional influence—an effort often called ‘the axis of resistance.’ Tehran has successfully positioned itself at the center of a web of allied states and militant groups, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis in Yemen. These Iranian-backed groups continue to threaten Israel and foment instability across the Middle East. For Israel, this network embodies a shared rejection of the liberal democratic order and remains an acute security challenge.
Israel’s Perspective and the October 7 Massacre
The Israeli lens on this development is rooted in both historical vigilance and present-day threats. On October 7, 2023, Iranian-armed and trained Hamas terrorists carried out the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust, storming Israeli communities, executing civilians, perpetrating documented sexual assaults, and seizing more than 240 hostages. This singular atrocity, and the ongoing war against Iranian-backed terror networks, exemplify the material dangers that can arise when authoritarian regimes form alliances based on shared opposition to human rights, pluralism, and Western influence.
Government and security officials in Israel stress the ongoing regional threat posed by Iran’s proxies, especially given recent increased coordination among these groups. The Hamas regime in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated operatives in Syria and Iraq all receive varying degrees of direction, weapons, and financing from Tehran. These entities are unified not by culture in the narrow sense, but by a rejection of democracy, tolerance, and the right of sovereign states to defend their citizens.
Human Rights in Bangladesh and Iran: Systemic Abuses
The parallel between Iran and Bangladesh extends into the field of human rights. Iran’s government regularly jails dissidents, represses independent journalism, and harshly punishes minorities, particularly LGBT individuals, who face criminalization and even capital punishment. Similarly in Bangladesh, the space for dissent is shrinking: journalists and opposition activists have been prosecuted under vague digital security and anti-terrorism laws, and minority communities routinely report discrimination and violence with little legal recourse.
The judiciary in both countries functions under significant executive influence. In Iran, the lack of fair trials and the prevalence of coerced confessions have been well-documented by international observers. Bangladesh has also seen mass trials, arbitrary arrests, and security force impunity. The repeated invocation of ‘national security’ to justify repression in both nations draws clear lines of affinity between their respective systems, and undercuts any substantive distinction in their treatment of individual rights.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
Bangladesh’s diplomatic outreach to Iran fits into Tehran’s broader strategy of cultivating partners in South Asia and beyond. By fostering feelings of cultural affinity, Iran seeks to soften its international isolation, expand economic and military cooperation, and promote a narrative opposed to Western democratic norms. Bangladeshi engagement with Iran may relate to issues ranging from energy security to balancing relationships with regional rivals, but inevitably raises questions for Israel and its democratic allies about growing authoritarian convergence in the region.
For Israel, maintaining its strategic edge and deepening alliances with countries prioritizing democracy and rule of law remains an urgent imperative. The Abraham Accords and ongoing diplomatic outreach across the Middle East and Africa are evidence of efforts to build a counterweight to the Iranian-led axis. The unity displayed among authoritarian states and terror organizations is no accident; it is part of a calculated campaign to threaten Israel’s existence and regional stability.
Conclusion: The Stakes of ‘Cultural Similarity’
The Bangladeshi ambassador’s comments in Qazvin are more than a matter of etiquette or shared tradition. They reflect the emergence of an ideological and political alignment in which rights abuses and authoritarian rule are normalized behind a veil of ‘cultural’ unity. As Iran continues to press its advantage through both soft-power diplomacy and hard-power proxies, Israel and its allies face an evolving threat landscape that demands clear-eyed analysis, historical clarity, and a steadfast commitment to democratic principles.
In this context, the contrast between Israel’s democracy—marked by vibrant civil society, legal oversight, and relentless self-examination—and the increasing authoritarianism of its adversaries could not be more pronounced. It is a difference that underpins not only regional security, but the basic rights and dignity of millions across the Middle East and beyond.
