By Ayesh Indranath Ranawaka –

Ayesh Indranath Ranawaka

I am not a racist, and I firmly reject the growing tendency to interpret global political conflicts through a racial lens. In recent discussions surrounding Iran and the United States, many individuals have reduced a complex geopolitical issue into a matter of ethnicity or identity. This approach is not only misleading but also harmful. Personally, I maintain friendships across Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim communities, and I believe strongly in social coexistence beyond racial divisions. My intention in writing this is to highlight how easily public discourse can be distorted when everything is framed as a racial issue.

When examining public opinion, it is noticeable that many people tend to sympathize with Iran while opposing Donald Trump. However, such positions are often formed without a deeper understanding of Iran’s internal political and social realities. Following the leadership of Khomeini and the 1979 revolution, Iran underwent a significant transformation in governance. The establishment of a theocratic system introduced strict policies that have been widely debated in terms of their social and political impact. Various international reports and surveys over the years have indicated considerable dissatisfaction among segments of the Iranian population, particularly regarding political freedoms, economic challenges, and civil rights.

Drawing from personal experience working within Iran’s oil fields in supply services by utility vessels, it is evident that public sentiment is not uniform. There are individuals who express preference for the pre-revolution era under the Shah, while others continue to support the current system as they have no other options. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that governance maintained through coercive power structures often leads to internal tensions and public discontent.

Another critical dimension of this issue involves Iran’s regional influence. Organizations such as Hamas , Houthies and Hezbollah are frequently associated with Iranian support in international political discourse. This association has contributed to heightened tensions between Iran and other global actors, particularly the Israel and United States. From this perspective, when policymakers like Donald Trump respond to perceived threats or strategic challenges, their actions are often framed as defensive or preventative. Whether such responses are justified remains a matter of ongoing global debate, but it is overly simplistic to dismiss them without examining the broader geopolitical context.

A particularly important legal and strategic issue arises in relation to the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints for global oil transportation. The key question is whether any country can claim control over such a vital international waterway or derive economic advantage from it.

Under the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Strait of Hormuz is classified as an international strait used for navigation. According to UNCLOS provisions:

* Ships of all states enjoy the right of transit passage, meaning they can pass through the strait without unnecessary interference.

* Coastal states, such as Iran and Oman, retain sovereignty over their territorial waters but cannot block or unjustifiably restrict navigation.

* While these states may regulate navigation for safety and environmental reasons, they cannot impose arbitrary restrictions or claim exclusive economic benefit from the passage of international vessels.

Therefore, NO single country has the legal authority to “own” the Strait of Hormuz or to control it in a way that violates international maritime law. Any attempt to restrict access or leverage the strait for unilateral economic gain would be inconsistent with UNCLOS principles and could trigger international legal and political consequences.

In light of these considerations, it is essential to approach the Iran–United States issue with careful analysis rather than emotional or ideological bias. Labeling leaders such as Donald Trump as purely “imperialist” without examining the underlying strategic, legal, and security concerns oversimplifies a highly complex situation. At the same time, claims made in the name of democracy should also be critically evaluated to ensure they align with international law and global stability.

Ultimately, informed discussion—not racial framing or political polarization—is the key to understanding such global issues. A balanced perspective requires acknowledging multiple dimensions, including governance, international law, regional security, and the lived experiences of people within affected nations. Further analysis on these aspects will contribute to a more meaningful and constructive dialogue.