Flight of Insanity

Now in its third week and still no end sight, Trump’s Iran’s war is showing a tedious pattern of tragic-comic episodes. The human tragedy continues under relentless aerial assaults in Iran and under both aerial and ground assaults in Lebanon. Israel, now in a hurry to destroy as much it can of its enemy assets before Trump lapses into war withdrawals, is picking its spots at will; three of its latest scalps could not have come at higher echelons of the Iranian regime. Within two days, Israeli has targeted and killed Ali Larijani, the powerful, versatile and experienced secretary of the Supreme National Security Council; Gholamreza Soleimani, head of the Basij paramilitary force; and Iran’s Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib.

Yet there is no indication if the continuing hollowing out of Iran’s decision making apparatus will produce the intended effect of encouraging the people of Iran to come out on the streets and topple the regime. People cannot pour on to the streets, even if they want to, until the American and Israeli bombing stops. That may not happen till the US military finishes its list of asset targets in Iran and Israel finishes off the list of Iranian leaders who are tagged on by Mossad’s network of Iranian moles. They are so widespread that last year after setting up a special task force to expose the internal informants, the National Security Council found out that the person whom they had selected to lead the task force was himself a spy! Disaffected citizens are also becoming informal informants.

The comical side of the war is provided by President Trump in the daily press court that he holds at the White House, taking full advantage of the presidential system in which the chief officer is not required to present himself to and take questions from the country’s elected lawmakers. There has never been and there likely will never be  another presidential spectacle like Donald J. Trump. It is shocking although not surprising to find out daily as to how much he doesn’t know about the war that he started or where it is heading. The ghost of Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary of the Iraq war and the coiner of the ‘unknown unknowns’ phrase, would tell you that Trump is the epitome of one of the known knowns, the predictable bully. For all his misjudgements and bad calls over the Iraq war 23 years ago, Rumsfeld now looks like a giant of a professional in comparison to Pete Hegseth, the bigmouthed charlatan who parades as Donald Trump’s Secretary of War.

Asymmetric Advantage

For its part, Iran appears to be reaping the worst and the best of an asymmetric warfare. Iran is getting pummelled in all the metrics of conventional warfare and there should be nothing surprising about it. It is rather silly for the American and Israeli military spokespeople to crow about their aerial strikes and their successes. On the other hand, the US and Israeli forces combined have not been able to answer Iran’s ability to establish areas of war where Iran sets the term and scores at its choosing. Quite astonishingly, President Trump has said that Iran was not supposed to attack its neighbours and no one apparently told him that such attacks might happen.

“Nobody. Nobody. No, no, no. The greatest experts—nobody thought they were going to hit,“ Trump responded to a leading question by a Fox News reporter whether the President was “surprised nobody briefed you ahead of time” about the likelihood of Iranian retaliation against America’s Gulf allies. Prevarication is second nature to President Trump and it is the same explanation for the Administration’s strategic gaffe over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has imposed a blockade over the narrow waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that provides vital passage for about 20% of the world’s oil shipments. Again, no one told him that Iran might do this. That is also because Trump has gotten rid of all the people in government capable of providing advice and is surrounding himself with sidekicks who will not challenge him on his misrepresentation of facts. As well, by keeping Congress out of the loop the President and the Administration tossed away the opportunity to deliberate before deciding to go to war.

True to form, Trump trots out another bizarre argument that the US does not have any shipment through the Strait of Hormuz and, therefore, it is up to countries, including China, that depend on the Hormuz route to come to his party in the Persian Gulf. The US would be there to help them out and he went on to invite his erstwhile allies and fellow NATO members to join the US and help the world keep the Strait of Hormuz open for its oil shipments.

Trump’s calls have been all but spurned. No US president has suffered such a rebuff. Other presidents did their consultations with allies before starting a war, not after. “This war started without any consultations,” said Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. He then  queried incredulously: “What does Donald Trump expect from a handful of European frigates in the Strait of Hormuz that the mighty US Navy cannot manage alone?” Iran has let it be known that it will block passage only to its enemies and allow others to cross the strait by arrangement. Chinese, Indian and Pakistani ships have been allowed to navigate through the strait. The UN and NATO countries are reportedly considering new initiatives to ensure safe passage through the Strait, but details are unclear.

While the official American endgame is unclear, scholars and academics have started weighing in and calling Trump’s misadventure for what it is. Three such contributions this week have caught the media’s attention. Muhanad Seloom writing online in Al Jazeera, has presented an unsolicited yet by far the strongest case for Trump, arguing that “the US-Israeli strategy is working” because Trump’s war against Iran is accomplishing a “systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades.” A former State Department staffer and now a Doha and Exeter academic, Seloom seems overly sanguine about the impending demise of the Iranian regime and underplays the political implications of the war’s externalities and unintended consequences for the Trump presidency in America.

The comprehensive degradation of virtually all of Iran’s hard assets is not in question. What is in question is whether the asset degradation is translating into a regime change. The additional questions are whether the obvious success in asset degradation is enough to save President Trumps political bacon in the midterm elections in November, or will it stop Iran from controlling the Strait of Hormuz and impacting the global oil flows. Firm negative answers to these questions have been provided by two American scholars. Nate Swanson, also a former State Department staffer turned academic researcher and who was also a member of Trump’s recent negotiating team with Iran, has additionally highlighted the martyrdom significance of the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei both within Iran and in the entire Shia crescent extending from Lebanon to Karachi.

Robert Pape, University of Chicago Historian, who has studied and modelled Iranian scenarios to advise past US Administrations, has compared President Trump’s situation in Iran to President Johnson’s quagmire in Vietnam in 1968. Pape’s thesis is that asymmetric conflicts inherently keep escalating and there is no winning way out for a superpower over a lesser power. The main  difference between Vietnam and Iran is that Vietnam did not trigger global oil and economic crises. Iran has triggered an oil crisis and the IMF is warning to expect higher inflation and lower growth as a result of the war. “Think of the unthinkable and prepare for it,” is the advice given to world’s policy makers by IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva to a symposium in Japan, earlier this month.

Global Oil Crisis

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has created a crisis of uneven supplies and high prices the likes of which have not been seen since the 1973 oil embargo by Arab countries in the wake of the Yom Kippur War that saw the price of oil increasing four fold from $3 to $12 a barrel. The International Energy Agency (IEA), which came into being as the western response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, has warned that the market is now experiencing “the most significant supply disruption in its history.”

According to Historians, denying or disrupting oil flows has been an effective tool in modern warfare. The oft cited examples before the 1973 oil embargo are the British oil blockade of Germany in World War 1, and the stopping of Germans accessing the Caucasus oilfields by the Soviet Union’s Red Army in World War II. The irony of the current crisis is that until now the world was getting to be more energy efficient and less oil dependent as a result of the technological, socioeconomic and behavioural changes that were unleashed by the 1973 oil embargo. Post Cold War globalization streamlined global oil flows even as the turn towards cheaper and renewable energy sources increased the use of alternative energy sources.

What was becoming a global energy complacency, according to Jason Bordoff and Meghan O’Sullivan, American academics and National Security advisers to former Presidents Obama and Bush, suffered its first disruptive shock with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Market reaction was immediate with crude oil prices increasing by over 50% and exceeding $135 per barrel. Russia cut its natural gas supply to Europe by half leaving western Europe the worst affected region by the crisis. In contrast, Asia is the worst affected continent by the current crisis although market reaction was not immediate apparently because the US was deemed a far more reliable actor than Russia. It is a different story now.

The present crisis is expected to ratchet up crude oil prices to as high as $150 to $200 a barrel in current dollars from what was below $75 before Trump started the war. Futures trading before the war projected $62 per barrel in 2027. Now, lower prices are not anticipated until after the end of this decade. The daily price has been yo-yoing above and below $100 in harmony with Trump’s musings about the course of the war and the time for its ending. The current market uncertainty stems from the growing realization that the Trump Administration was not clear about why it was starting the war and now it does not know how or when to bring it to an end. The Hormuz crisis has made the prospects all the bleaker.

Sri Lanka’s Options

In the unfolding uncertainty, the only certainty is that Sri Lanka’s options are limited. The challenges facing the country and the government involve both politics and economics. For the country, even the political options are limited – perhaps as limited as the economic options available to the government in the short term. The incessant political critics of the government start with extrapolating Aragalaya and end with anticipating another government collapse like the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government. But anyone looking for political alternatives to the NPP government should look at the press photograph showing a recent news conference of opposition party leaders announcing the formation of “a common opposition platform to resist the government’s anti-democratic actions.” Missing an action and absconding per usual, like Julia Roberts in Runway Bride, is once again Sajith Premadasa, the accredited Leader of the Opposition.

Talk about democratic priorities when the economic engine and the energy generators will soon have no oil or diesel to run on. Among the assembled, there is no one equipped enough to head a government ministry with the possible exception of Champika Ranawaka. And it is rich to talk about constitutional dictatorship for a group that was associated with the extended one-party government from 1977 to 1994, and a second group the tried to perpetuate a one-family government between 2005 and 2022. It is virtually imperative to argue that for the sake of the country the NPP government must successfully navigate through the impending crisis. Whether the government will be able to live up to what is now a necessity, not just expectation, we will soon find out.

There is no minimizing or underestimating the magnitude of the crisis. Crude oil and petroleum products account for nearly 20% of the total import bill. Rising oil prices will impact the balance of payment and forex reserves, and could potentially siphon off the currently accumulated $7+ billion forex balance. Rupee devaluation and inflation are likely, but not necessarily to the absurd levels reached during the ultimate Rajapaksa regime. Economic growth will slow and the $1.5 to $2.0 billion FDI targets may not materialize. The current arrangement for debt repayment may have to be revisited, even as relief measures will need to be undertaken to soften the rising price effects throughout the economy and among the less privileged sections of society. Restricting consumption has already been started and the country may have to brace for further restrictions and even power cuts.

In the short term, renegotiating the current EFF (Extended Fund Facility) terms with the IMF will be unavoidable. Equally important are long term measures. The low storage capacity for oil and petroleum has made price fluctuations inevitable. The government has announced storage capacity expansion in Kolonnawa and fast tracking the construction of a jet-fuel pipeline from Muthurajawela to Katunayake – to facilitate the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) becoming a regional aviation hub. The current shipping problems present a new opportunity for the utilization of the expanded terminal facilities to increase transhipment operations at the Colombo harbour.

At long last, after 78 years, there is some action to upgrade the storied 99 oil tanks in Trincomalee. But the bulk of the upgrading depends on the trilateral agreement between Sri Lanka, India and the United Arab Emirates to create an energy hub in Trincomalee. This might run into delays because of the current situation involving the UAE. Already delayed is the construction of the $3.7b Sinopec Oil refinery in Hambantota, the MOU for which was signed more than an year ago. The NPP government has been adept in keeping good relationships with both India and China. Now is the time to try to expedite the deliverables on their commitments.

Another not so long term necessity is to expand electricity generation through renewable sources and minimize its dependence on thermal generation based on imported oil, not to mention coal. Thermal power contributes to just under 50% of energy output at about 80% of total generation costs. In contrast, just over 50% of the output is generated by renewable sources, including hydro, at 20% of the total cost.

The contribution of hydropower is weather dependent and its uncertainty has long been the pretext for persisting with thermal power and not encouraging the development  of solar and wind energy sources. There is no more urgent time to stop this persistence than now in light of the oil crisis. The government must cut through the cobwebs of vested thermal power interests and make clean energy a central part of its Clean Sri Lanka initiative. China is in the forefront of renewable energy technology and expansion and has timed the unveiling of its new five year renewable energy expansion plan to coincide with the current oil crisis. Many countries are emulating China and Sri Lanka should join them.

Singer Sri Lanka, the nation’s foremost retailer of consumer durables, celebrates a truly historic milestone at the SLIM-KANTAR People’s Awards 2026, securing a prestigious triple victory while marking 20 consecutive years as the People’s Brand of the Year, an achievement made possible by the enduring trust and loyalty of Sri Lankan consumers.

This year, SINGER was honoured with yet another triple win with People’s Brand of the Year, Youth Brand of the Year and People’s Durables Brand of the Year at the awards ceremony. This remarkable recognition reflects the deep and lasting relationship the brand has built with Sri Lankans across generations, standing as a symbol of trust in homes across the island.

Reaching this 20-year milestone is not just a testament to brand strength, but a celebration of the millions of customers who have continuously chosen SINGER as a part of their everyday lives. For two decades, Sri Lankans have placed their confidence in the brand, welcoming it into their homes, their families, and their aspirations.

Expressing his appreciation, Janmesh Antony, Director – Marketing of Singer Sri Lanka PLC, stated:

“Winning these awards reflects our commitment to quality, innovation, and staying closely connected to our customers. Being recognised as Durables brand, Youth brand, and as the People’s Brand of the Year highlights our ability to resonate across generations. As we celebrate 20 years as the People’s Brand, our deepest gratitude goes to our customers, this milestone truly belongs to them. It also reflects the dedication of our teams, who continuously strive to serve them better every day. Winning Youth Brand of the Year further reinforces our focus on staying relevant and meaningfully connected with the next generation.”

Commenting on the milestone, Mahesh Wijewardene, Group Managing Director of Singer Sri Lanka PLC, added:

“This recognition is a tribute to the millions of Sri Lankans who have stood by us over the years. Being named the People’s Brand of the Year for the 20th consecutive time is both humbling and inspiring. It reflects the deep trust our customers place in us, and we are truly grateful for the role we play in their everyday lives. This milestone strengthens our commitment to continue delivering value, innovation, and service excellence, always with our customers at the heart of everything we do.”

Over the years, SINGER has grown alongside the people of Sri Lanka, evolving from a trusted household name into a future-ready retail powerhouse. By continuously innovating its product portfolio and enhancing service excellence, the brand has remained closely aligned with the changing needs and aspirations of its customers.

Guided by a deep-rooted customer-first philosophy, an extensive islandwide retail network, and dependable after-sales service, Singer continues to set benchmarks not only in the consumer durables sector but across the nation. By elevating everyday living and bringing greater convenience, comfort, and ease into Sri Lankan homes, the brand has become a trusted partner in shaping modern lifestyles. Its growing connection with younger audiences further reflects its ability to seamlessly blend legacy with contemporary aspirations.

As Singer Sri Lanka celebrates this milestone, the company remains profoundly grateful for the trust placed in it by generations of Sri Lankans. With a continued commitment to enriching lives through innovation and making everyday living more effortless and accessible, Singer looks ahead to growing alongside its customers, strengthening its place as one of the most trusted, loved, and enduring brands in the country.

Early last year [probably 2004] I received a call from Michael Ludgrove the then head of the rare book section at Christies Auction house requesting help to decipher the names of Ceylonese cricketers who had signed a cricket bat in the 1930’s following a combined India-Ceylon match against the visiting MCC. This led to my keeping an eye out for unusual items on Ceylon cricket.

A few months later a set of autographs came up for sale. They were of the visiting English women cricketers who played a match in Colombo, against the Ceylon women in the first “Test” of its kind. I was lucky to trace two of the test cricketers from the Ceylon team who now live in Victoria, Beverly Roberts (Juriansz) and Enid (Gilly) Fernando. Incidentally Gilly is called Gilly after AER Gilligan the Australian Cricketer and answers to no other name.

The visiting English team were on their way to Australia on the SS Orion. The Colombo Cricket Club were the hosts and the match was played at the Oval on the November 1, 1948. The match attracted a crowd of around 5,000 many of whom had not seen women play cricket before. Among the distinguished guests were the Governor General, the Bishop of Brisbane, the Assistant Bishop of Colombo -the Reverend Lakdasa de Mel, the Yuvaraj and Yuvaranee of Kutch and Sir Richard Aluwihare.

The well known cricket writer, SP Foenander, provided the broadcast commentary.

The English team consisted of: Molly Hyde (Capt.), Miss Rheinberger, Nacy Joy, Grace Morgan, Mary Duggan, Betty Birch, Dorothy McEroy, Mary Johnson, Megan Lowe, Nancy Wheelan,

The Ceylon team consisted of Miss O Turner (Capt.), Miss Enid (Gilly) Fernando, Miss C Hutton, Miss S Gaddum, Shirley Thomas, Marienne Adihetty, Beverley Roberts, Pat Weinman, Leela Abeykoon, Binthan Noordeen

Reserves: Mrs D H Swan & Mrs E G Joseph. Umpires: W S Findall and H E W De Zylva.

There is on record a previous match, played by a visiting English women’s cricket team in Colombo. However, they played against a team consisting mainly of wives of European Planters and no Ceylonese were included.

Beverley Roberts, 16 years old Leela Abeykoon and Phyllis De Silva were from St John’s Panadura which was the first girl’s school to play cricket. Their coach was G C Roberts (older brother of Michael Roberts). Marienne Adihetty was from Galle and her brother played for Richmond College. Binthan Noordeen was from Ladies College. She is the granddaughter of M.C. Amoo one of the best Malay cricketers of former days, who took a team from Ceylon to Bombay in 1910. Binthan was a teacher at Ladies College at the time and also excelled in hockey, netball and tennis. Pat Weinman is the daughter of Jeff Weinman, a former Nondescripts cricketer.

The team was mainly coached by S. Saravanamuttu with others such as S J Campbell helping. The arrangements were made by the Board of Control of Cricket headed by P Saravanamuttu. Though the match itself was one sided with the Ceylon women cricketers beaten decisively, the Ceylon team impressed the visitors by their gallant display, after less than two months of practice as a team. The English team won the toss and batted first. Molly Slide the captain scored a century in a fine display of batting. The captain of the Ceylon team Mrs Hutton took six wickets for 43.

(Michael Roberts Thuppahi blog)

Dr. Srilal Fernando in Melbourne, reproducing an essay that appeared originally in The CEYLANKAN, a quarterly produced by the Ceylon Research Society in Australia.