A Small Nation Between Great Power Rivalries: Sri Lanka Publicly Rejects Military Requests from Both the U.S. and Iran

Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently made a clear statement at a public rally in Nikaweratiya in the country's northwestern province: as the military conflict between the United States and Iran continues, Sri Lankan territorial waters and territory will "absolutely not be allowed" to be used for any hostile action against neighboring India.

According to The Times of India citing Press Trust of India (PTI), Dissanayake reviewed the current government's diplomatic record over the past two years in his speech, emphasizing that Sri Lanka would continue to pursue a strict non-aligned policy and would not be drawn into military conflicts between major powers. "We are not a country with military capability, so we will not become a party to any military conflict," he said.

But beyond the publicly stated principles lie bilateral requests carrying greater pressure. Dissanayake revealed that Sri Lanka simultaneously rejected requests from both the United States and Iran—neither allowing U.S. aircraft to land in Sri Lanka, nor accepting Iran's request to send warships. "But when it comes to humanitarian assistance requests, we will not hesitate," he added.

This statement reveals the structural dilemma faced by middle-power countries with limited military capability amid great power rivalries. When world-class or regional military powers—whether the U.S. military deploying submarines or the Iranian navy seeking port support—make requests to small countries for the use of territory, airspace, or bases within the framework of their contest, countries like Sri Lanka are pushed into a position of being "petitioned and pressured." Refusal often comes with hidden diplomatic, economic, and even security costs, while acquiescence means being drawn into a military confrontation beyond their capacity.

In March this year, the concrete form of this pressure has already become apparent. After an Iranian vessel was attacked by a U.S. submarine in waters near Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka provided hospital treatment for the vessel's injured crew members. This also constitutes the actual room for maneuver that Sri Lanka has in the vortex of great power confrontation—not taking sides at the military level, while assuming responsibility at the humanitarian level.

Dissanayake's latest statement came after Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh's three-day visit to Colombo last month. According to The Times of India, during the visit Sri Lanka and India discussed regional security, maritime partnership, and issues such as "peace and prosperity"; Singh conveyed Indian Prime Minister Modi's greetings to Dissanayake and congratulated him on his two-year anniversary in office. The two countries reaffirmed that, as close neighbors and maritime partners, they would jointly support regional security.

Judging from the structure of the discourse, Sri Lanka's "non-alignment" in the new round of U.S.-Iran confrontation is not an abstract principle, but rather a realistic choice under great power pressure. When a country has neither the will nor the capacity to bear the costs of a military alliance, simultaneously rejecting both the U.S. and Iran—beyond the security boundaries of concern to its largest neighbor, India—becomes a limited but necessary way to maintain sovereignty and preserve diplomatic room for maneuver.

However, the fragility of the non-aligned policy is equally evident: whether Sri Lanka has faced subsequent diplomatic or economic pressure after rejecting the U.S. and Iranian requests is not publicly disclosed at present; the stage and scale of the U.S.-Iran conflict itself also remain unclear. What can be confirmed is that in any narrative of escalating military confrontation between great powers, countries like Sri Lanka often do not appear in the headlines, until they are forced to make a choice—or forced to bear the consequences of others' choices.