By: Dr. Mohamed Shareef Asees
PhD in Global Studies; MA in International Relations; BA in Political Science; based in Berlin, Germany
Introduction: The Human Cost of Conflict
The ongoing escalation between Iran, the United States, and Israel highlights the fragility of international peace. The aerial attack targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader and his close companions during diplomatic negotiations in Oman represents a clear violation of Iran’s sovereignty and raises serious ethical and legal concerns. Even more tragic was the bombing of a primary school, resulting in the deaths of nearly 185 children. Such incidents are a grim reminder of the human cost of war, revealing that children and other civilians often bear the highest toll. While the conflict is concentrated in the Middle East, its repercussions are global, affecting energy security, trade, and humanitarian responsibilities. For nations far from the conflict, including Sri Lanka, these events underscore how interconnected security, economic stability, and human welfare have become in the modern world.
Historical Context and Geopolitical Background
The current crisis cannot be understood without examining the strategic manipulation of regional dynamics. The United States has long leveraged the Shia–Sunni divide in the Middle East, not as a purely religious distinction but as a political tool to isolate Iran and portray it as a threat to neighboring Arab countries. By emphasizing sectarian differences, the US justified the establishment of military bases across several Gulf nations, ensuring a permanent strategic presence in the region. US policy has also focused on guaranteeing Israel’s existence and security, positioning it as a regional “check and balance” against Iran. This dual strategy projecting Iran as a threat while securing alliances and bases has shaped the geopolitical landscape for decades, constraining Iran’s influence and maintaining US strategic dominance in the Gulf.
Miscalculations and Iran’s Resilience
The United States assumed that assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader would destabilize the country, weaken the regime, and force a political realignment favorable to US interests. This miscalculation ignored Iran’s decades-long military and civil preparedness, including fortified defenses, strategic infrastructure, and social mechanisms to ensure governance continuity under extreme conditions. Rather than weakening the country, the attack strengthened national cohesion, as citizens and military personnel rallied around the principle of sovereignty a response seen historically in nations facing foreign aggression. Iran’s measured retaliation, primarily targeting US military bases rather than civilians, demonstrates both strategic capability and restraint, highlighting the limits of unilateral interventions in complex geopolitical environments.
The Multipolar World and International Response
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has acted as a global superpower, policing international affairs with unmatched military and economic strength. For decades, no single state challenged US dominance. However, the rise of China, Russia, India, and increasingly Iran has shifted the balance, signaling a multipolar world order. This shift is evident in the response to the Middle East crisis. While the US expected broad support from European allies and other partners, many countries expressed reluctance or outright dissatisfaction, refusing to participate directly in military interventions. The first few days of the conflict initially favored US and Israeli actions, but Iran’s resilience and strategic preparation, combined with the lack of unified international support for the US, have altered the trajectory of the crisis.
The Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz
A central aspect of this crisis is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway only 33 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, linking the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. Despite its small size, it is a critical chokepoint for global oil trade, with nearly one-third of the world’s seaborne crude passing through it. Major importers are highly dependent on this corridor: India imports over 70% of its oil via Hormuz, China more than 60%, and Japan about 70%. Any disruption threatens global energy security, drives up oil prices, and destabilizes economies. Iran’s control of the strait provides strategic leverage, while US calls for allied forces to “secure” Hormuz have been met with caution, reflecting both the limits of alliances and the complex ethical dilemmas facing regional powers.
Middle East Dynamics and Iran’s Retaliation
Iran has acted cautiously and strategically. Its attacks have primarily targeted US military bases rather than civilians, showing restraint. While these operations may inconvenience host nations, Iran has issued apologies, emphasizing that its intent is to counter US aggression rather than attack Arab countries. Most Arab nations hosting US bases find themselves in a difficult and constrained position. Despite occasional criticisms from political figures such as remarks from leaders in Qatar denouncing US military actions these countries cannot expel US forces or challenge Washington directly. Long-standing alliances and dependence on US protection make immediate changes virtually impossible, highlighting the limits of sovereignty in highly militarized regions.
Humanitarian and Economic Consequences
While the active conflict may last only a few weeks, the human and economic impact is already profound. Infrastructure has been damaged, civilians displaced, and rebuilding could take decades. Hospitals, schools, and residential areas have been affected, while humanitarian aid struggles to reach those most in need. Economically, disruptions in oil supply threaten global markets. Countries reliant on Middle Eastern oil, including Sri Lanka, India, China, and Japan, face rising fuel costs and economic instability. The cascading effects of this crisis demonstrate how even short-term military actions can produce long-lasting consequences worldwide.
Sri Lanka’s Response and Challenges
The conflict reached Sri Lankan waters when a US attack on an Iranian vessel resulted in casualties. The vessel, engaged in routine maritime activity, came under military assault, leading to deaths and injuries among Iranian personnel. In response, three naval vessels of the Sri Lankan Navy were dispatched to provide humanitarian support. Injured personnel were rescued, and the deceased were returned respectfully to Iran, demonstrating Sri Lanka’s commitment to international law and ethical principles. Sri Lanka’s actions reflect diplomatic maturity and neutrality, balancing humanitarian obligations with national interests. As a Non Aligned Movement (NAM) Sri Lanka maintained its neutrality and full filled the humanitarian assistance. Sri Lanka’s economy, as rising oil prices impacted domestic markets. Politically, the country must carefully navigate global alliances and regional ethics, a challenge faced by many smaller nations in international conflicts.
Global Implications
The crisis has far-reaching consequences. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz threaten energy security for major importers. European allies and other US partners have largely been reluctant to intervene militarily, reflecting skepticism toward unilateral action. The conflict demonstrates the risks of miscalculation: leadership-targeted attacks rarely achieve strategic goals and often provoke resilient retaliation, creating cycles of conflict with regional and global effects.
Conclusion: Ethical Diplomacy amid Global Tensions
While the active phase of the conflict may be short-lived, its repercussions on human lives, infrastructure, and economies will last for decades. Sri Lanka’s ethical and neutral response illustrates how smaller nations can mitigate human suffering while maintaining diplomatic independence. The Middle East crisis underscores the human cost of war, showing that even carefully planned military actions can result in unintended consequences, global economic instability, and humanitarian crises. Sustainable peace is achieved not through force but through principled negotiation, respect for sovereignty, and multilateral engagement.
This situation serves as a reminder that violence, miscalculations, and disregard for sovereignty come at a cost far exceeding any perceived strategic gain. For the international community, including nations like Sri Lanka, the imperative is to prioritize humanitarian principles, ethical diplomacy, and careful engagement in conflict zones.
References:
- Cordesman, A. H., & Kleiber, M. (2025). Iranian Military Capabilities and Strategy. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- Katzman, K. (2025). Iran: US Policy and Regional Dynamics. Congressional Research Service
- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2025). Persian Gulf and Global Oil Trade
- International Crisis Group. (2025). Iran’s Regional Influence and Military Strategy
Human Rights Watch. (2025). Civilian Casualties and School A
