By S. I. Keethaponcalan –

Dr. S. I. Keethaponcalan

In relation to the ongoing American-Israeli and Iran war, the best option available for a small and weak state like Sri Lanka is to stay neutral. On 28 February 2026, the United States, in partnership with Israel, bombed Iran, starting a new phase of the Middle East war (Iran War, in short). Two main factors influenced the decision to attack Iran.

First, Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu targeted Iran for a relatively long time, as Iran and especially its nuclear program were viewed as an existential threat. In the backdrop of many Middle Eastern Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, turning pro-West, Iran remained a formidable threat to Israel. As many military analysts have pointed out, Netanyahu had been trying to get the U.S. to attack Iran, but this approach did not work with previous presidents, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden. President Donald Trump is impressionable, and Netanyahu’s manoeuvring worked on him.

Second, Trump has militaristic tendencies and has been trying to promote a strong man image of himself. Hence, the idea of an attack on Iran was attractive to Trump. The impressive success in Venezuela could have influenced him to believe that Iran job would be easy. It goes without saying that Trump is an overconfident man. Trump also believes that he has more power in his second term as president. What does this mean? In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the president enjoys absolute immunity for official actions. Therefore, he is legally fully protected. Moreover, he does not have to face voters again. Therefore, there are no personal political consequences for his decisions. It seems he also overestimated the Iranian domestic resistance to the regime. Therefore, the decision to attack Iran in February 2026 was not cumbersome.

Some commentators in the U.S. link the attack to the Epstein controversy or crisis. The argument is that Trump decided to strike Iran to turn the attention from the loads of Epstein files released by the U.S. State Department under legal compulsion. Trump’s name appears in the files thousands of times. I am not convinced of this argument because Trump’s support among Republicans remains solid, and he has already declared “total exoneration” and moved on.  Therefore, in my view, the decision to attack Iran is hardly connected to the Epstein issue.

Sri Lankan Entanglement   

The conventional wisdom is that Sri Lanka is only remotely connected to conflicts in the Middle East. Therefore, few would have expected that Sri Lanka would become part of the Iran War. Sri Lanka was drawn into this global crisis unexpectedly and suddenly. On 4 March, a U.S. submarine torpedoed and sank the Iranian warship, Iris Dena, killing 84 sailors. When attacked, Iris Dena was returning from the International Fleet Review, a multinational naval exercise in Visakhapatnam, India, and was about 20 nautical miles off the coast of Galle, a Southern Sri Lankan town. Sri Lanka rescued 32 sailors from the sinking vessel and celebrated the move as a humanitarian success.

There was also the second ship. The Irins Bushehr was off the Sri Lankan coast at the same time the U.S. sank the Iris Dena. The vessel requested permission to dock in Sri Lankan waters due to engine failure.  It is possible that the ship feared a U.S. attack. Sri Lanka evacuated 208 sailors from the ship and granted permission to dock at Trincomalee port. Sri Lanka justified the decision citing international law. Meanwhile, the U.S. urged Sri Lanka not to allow Iran to use rescued crew members for propaganda against the U.S.

On 21 March, reports indicated that Iran had fired two missiles at the Diego Garcia base. Diego Garcia lies about 1,100 miles southwest of Sri Lanka and hosts a joint United Kingdom–U.S. military base. As such, it could become a target or serve as a launch point for U.S. operations against Iran. If the conflict expands to the Indian Ocean, with Diego Garcia as a focal point, Sri Lanka could be drawn more deeply into the war.

Sri Lanka Neutrality          

It was against this backdrop that President Dissanayake proudly declared Sri Lanka’s neutrality in relation to the Iran War. Addressing the parliament on 20 March, Dissanayake declared, “our unwavering stance on this matter (the Iran War) is one of neutrality. We can maintain the dignity of our nation, guarantee justice and achieve international acknowledgement solely by safeguarding our neutrality. Consequently, under no circumstances, no matter the pressures we encounter, will we permit this neutrality to be undermined” (Emphasis mine). He offered an example of how the state policy of neutrality was demonstrated. According to the President, the U.S. has requested permission to land two military aircraft at the Mattala International Airport in the first week of March. Meanwhile, Iran has sought permission to send three of its naval ships to Sri Lanka for strengthening friendship and cooperation. The government had rejected both requests.

In a way, it is not surprising that Sri Lanka decided to stay neutral in a fight between two friends of Sri Lanka. Iran is an important trade partner. Sri Lanka buys oil from Iran while maintaining it as one of the country’s primary markets for tea exports. In 2024, Sri Lanka’s tea exports to Iran were worth about US$62 million. Iran also helps Sri Lanka in other sectors. For example, it assisted the Uma Oya hydropower and irrigation project.

The U.S., on the other hand, is crucial politically, economically and militarily. For example, the U.S. considerably assisted the Sri Lankan government in ending the civil war by militarily defeating the LTTE. It started to build and strengthen the Sri Lankan military, especially after the commencement of the Norway-facilitated peace negotiations in 2002. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead claimed, “In sum, the US military relations with Sri Lanka increased substantially from a fairly low base after the start of the peace process.” The close military collaboration between Sri Lanka and the U.S. continued even after the end of the civil war. For example, in November 2025, Sri Lanka signed a defence pact (Memorandum of Understanding) formalizing a defence partnership between Sri Lanka’s armed forces and the Montana National Guard. Interestingly, this agreement was signed by the NPP government. Economically, also, the U.S. is crucial, as, for example, about 40 per cent of Sri Lanka’s apparel exports go to the U.S. America is the largest single-country market for Sri Lanka’s garment exports.

Therefore, Sri Lanka has benefited greatly from both the U.S. and Iran. The irony, of course, is that it will help neither party when it matters, that is, the other side of the neutrality coin.

The Risk    

Despite the irony, neutrality is a good policy.  Nevertheless, I hope that the government fully understands the risks involved in such a policy in this scenario. In the context of the war on terror, in 2001, George W. Bush famously declared that ‘either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.’ Donald Trump is likely to apply a similarly binary logic more forcefully, potentially retaliating harshly against Sri Lanka for maintaining neutrality.

Retaliation may take different forms. A significant issue is U.S. tariffs on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is currently negotiating with the Trump administration regarding the U.S. tariffs. It is well known that Trump has weaponized tariffs against various countries. What would happen if Trump substantially increased the tariffs on Sri Lanka? One can only hope that the government is ready for the challenges caused by the current non-aligned policy.  I do not believe that absolute neutrality is feasible in the Trump era. Sri Lanka will require a degree of flexibility. Quiet neutrality—adopting a neutral stance without publicly announcing it—would have given the government space to manoeuvre.