Iranian Ambassador in Colombo Dr. Alireza Delkhosh says the Islamic Republic of Iran remains fully prepared to face US-Israeli aggression.

In an interview with The Island at the Iranian Embassy, in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised that in case of a fresh outbreak of hostilities, the aggressors, as well as those who provided bases for unprovoked military campaign ,should be prepared to face the consequences.

Excerpts of the interview:

The Island: Did Iran anticipate Israel-US launching unprovoked attacks in the midst of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and US in Geneva, mediated by Oman?

Ambassador: Iran’s wall of mistrust towards the US is rooted in decades of hostile policies and, specifically, Washington’s dark record of broken promises. We always welcomed diplomacy in good faith and serious intent, entering diplomatic channels accordingly; yet, we have repeatedly witnessed the US chose the path of betraying diplomacy in the midst of negotiations.

We do not build our foreign policy on optimism toward the US, as we fundamentally do not view the current US administration as a trustworthy party. The recurrence of provocative patterns and coordination with the Zionist regime’s actions during sensitive negotiations indicate a systematic approach to discredit diplomacy.

From our perspective;

“Any coercive or military action taken alongside mediation efforts serves as further evidence of Washington’s lack of sincere will for diplomacy and its attempt to exert pressure under the guise of dialogue—an approach that will not go unanswered.”

The Island: Do you think the latest war and regional developments, such as the UAE pulling out of OPEC, should be examined, taking into consideration the Oct0ber 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Ambassador: Allow me to rephrase your question: Is there a link between the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran and the Zionist regime’s warmongering policies? My answer is a definitive “yes”.

Any serious analysis of the current regional dynamics must be placed within the broader historical and structural context of the Palestinian question and the continuation of occupation and blockade. Iran has consistently maintained that the developments of October 7, 2023, did not emerge in a vacuum, but are rooted in decades of unresolved injustice, the denial of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and the absence of a credible political horizon.

From this perspective, the subsequent escalation in the region reflects a chain of reactions shaped by long-standing structural tensions, rather than isolated incidents. Iran has repeatedly emphasised that sustainable stability can only be achieved through ending occupation, addressing the root causes of the crisis, and upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus, it is important not to reduce complex geopolitical developments to a single starting point. Energy market decisions, alliance shifts, and military escalations are influenced by a broader set of strategic, economic, and political factors.

The Island: What is the status of talks mediated by Pakistan?

Ambassador: A high-ranking Iranian delegation attended an intense day of negotiations, with American negotiators, in Pakistan, on 12th of April, to permanently end a US-Israeli aggression against the country. Iran agreed to participate in the negotiations after US authorities indicated they had accepted Iran’s general conditions as a baseline for peace deal discussions. However, during 20 hours’ intense talks, the US changed its position.

The main sticking point in the talks was the US reluctance to agree to Iran’s legitimate rights to have a peaceful nuclear programme, which Iran has insisted on for years and just before entering the talks, based on the UNSC resolution and the relevant laws.

Iran’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the principles of dignity, mutual respect, and rejection of coercion or imposed negotiations. Within this framework, Iran has consistently stated that it remains open to indirect diplomatic engagement through mediators, including regional partners, such as Pakistan, provided that diplomacy is conducted in a balanced and credible environment. At the same time, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that the effectiveness of any negotiating track is directly undermined by the US coercive measures, unilateral sanctions, and pressure-based policies.

Sustainable diplomacy necessitates a complete decoupling from pressure tactics; it must be grounded in genuine reciprocity and respect for national rights and interests. Guided by this principled approach, Iran continues to engage in mediation efforts, in good faith, while resolutely safeguarding its sovereign rights and rejecting any framework that resembles ‘dictation under pressure’.”

The Island: The UN has pathetically failed to intervene in the current West Asia conflict. Both Israel and the US simply ignored the UN and the world body seems irrelevant. As a seasoned diplomat what is your opinion on the UN? What is wrong with the global body”

Ambassador: Iran views the UN as an important multilateral institution established to safeguard international peace and security; however, its effectiveness has increasingly been constrained by the selective application of its Charter and the politicisation of decision-making, particularly within the Security Council.

Currently, the international community is witnessing highly dangerous interpretations of ‘peace,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘aggression’ by the US and the Israeli regime. In their lexicon, if they attack a country, it is labelled a ‘peace operation’ or ‘legitimate defence’; yet, if a nation defends itself, it is branded as ‘warmongering.’

“When the innocent people of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq are stripped of their fundamental human and humanitarian rights and endure profound suffering due to attacks, genocides, and inhumane sanctions, it is as if—in the prevailing international discourse—’human rights’ are not being violated at all.”

The world witnessed, on many occasions, that when certain permanent members are directly involved, or aligned with one side of a conflict, the UN’s ability to act impartially is significantly weakened.

From this perspective, the current situation does not reflect irrelevance of the United Nations itself, but rather highlights the structural imbalance in the international order, where enforcement mechanisms are often subject to geopolitical considerations. Iran has, therefore, consistently called for fundamental reform of global governance structures, including democratisation of the Security Council and strengthening of multilateralism, based on justice, equality, and respect for sovereignty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports a United Nations that truly represents the rights of nations and establishes justice. The current state of global affairs reflects the failure of certain powers to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

While emphasising the necessity of effective multilateralism to guarantee international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to an international order, based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, I must state that: “Unilateralism negates the essential and fundamental principles of the United Nations. Unilateralism is an invitation to injustice, confrontation, and war.”

The Island: In spite of sustained US pressure, its NATO allies declined to join military action against Iran or commit forces to Hormuz Strait. The British and French positions caused an unprecedented rift between them and the US. Do you think NATO countries’ split position on Iran war caused irreparable damage to the largest military organisation in the world?

Ambassador: Differences among NATO members on the use of force in external theatres are not unprecedented. Divergent approaches to specific regional conflicts can place strain on political unity and strategic messaging within this alliance. Whether such differences translate into long-term structural damage depends on how effectively members manage internal consultation and reaffirm shared principles.

Let’s not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States, and differences among its members often reflect not a principled divergence, but rather varying degrees of alignment with Washington’s regional policies.

What is presented as “internal consultation” within NATO is frequently constrained by asymmetric influence, where key decisions on the use of force are effectively driven by the US agenda.

In this context, disagreements among NATO members on external military actions are seen in Tehran less as an institutional safeguard and more as evidence of the alliance’s limited strategic autonomy, particularly in relation to West Asia. Therefore, these divergences do not merely represent tactical differences, but highlight a deeper structural issue: the growing questioning of interventionist policies and the sustainability of military blocs in addressing complex regional crises.

The Island: When did you first hear about the unprovoked US attack on Iran frigate off Galle? (The date and time, please). Who told you about the unfortunate incident? What was your first reaction?

Ambassador: What was particularly concerning was that the IRIS Dena was understood to be undertaking a routine passage in the region, returning from an official visit to India, and was not engaged in any combat or hostile activity. Any incident involving a naval vessel, under such circumstances, is naturally a matter of serious concern and a war crime, especially when it raises questions about maritime safety and the protection of unarmed or non-combat assets.

My immediate priority, upon receiving credible confirmation about this attack, would have been the safety of personnel and the prevention of any escalation. From the first moments of receiving this information, I have been in direct talks and consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other relevant government authorities, while ensuring that no conclusions are drawn until all facts are verified.

The Island: Did you visit the Iranian vessel and sailors now at Trincomalee?

Ambassador: At this stage, I would like to state that the primary responsibility of the mission has been to maintain continuous contact with the relevant Sri Lankan authorities and ensure the safety, welfare, and proper handling of Iranian personnel and assets involved. In this regard, we have been in close and ongoing coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other competent government institutions to follow up on all necessary arrangements.

Our focus has been on ensuring that all matters are addressed through official diplomatic channels in accordance with international maritime and humanitarian procedures. The well-being of our personnel and the proper management of the situation remain our highest priority.

The Island: Ambassador, you presented your credentials to the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe in late October, 2023. What were the previous diplomatic stations you served before taking over the Colombo mission?

Ambassador: Prior to my mission in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I served in various diplomatic capacities in Turkey, Sweden, and Uzbekistan.”

The Island:Would you mind stating Iranian red lines about issues that Iran would never give up such as the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes and control over Hormuz Strait?

Ambassador: Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principles of sovereignty, deterrence, and the rejection of coercion and unilateral pressure, while simultaneously affirming its commitments under international law. In this framework, we have consistently emphasised that the Islamic Republic will never relinquish its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment for civilian purposes, such as energy production, medical applications, and scientific development. As we continually maintained, this right is fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, Iran regards the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic national responsibility, given that it lies within Iran’s sovereign waters and is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. Our officials have repeatedly stated that the security of the Persian Gulf and Hormuz must be maintained by regional states themselves, without external militarisation or domination.

However, Iran has consistently expressed concern over certain regional developments in which neighbouring territories have been utilised for the projection of external military power, including by the United States, which, in Tehran’s view, contributes to heightened tensions and undermines regional stability. From Iran’s perspective, such dynamics are among the key factors affecting and jeopardising the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Within this framework, Iran has emphasised that any threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or strategic security interests would be met with firm and proportionate resistance, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

Taken together, from a broader perspective: “The overarching framework of Iran’s foreign policy is built upon three primary pillars: countering diplomatic pressures, maintaining autonomy in strategic decision-making while safeguarding national interests and sovereignty, and emphasising the principle of reciprocity. This approach—rooted in the three guiding principles of ‘Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency’—reflects Tehran’s explicit opposition to unilateralism and bullying in the global arena.”

The Island: Iran proved that it had the strength and the will power to face daunting military challenges and, in spite of civilian protests, influenced by economic hardships, the public stood by the leadership during the hour of crisis. What is Iran’s message to the world?

Ambassador: Iran is the heir to a great civilisation, spanning several millennia. Iran’s message to the world is that national resilience is ultimately rooted in the bond between the state and its nation, particularly, during times of external pressure and security challenges. Despite economic hardships, the Iranian people have demonstrated that in moments of national crisis, priorities converge around the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security.

From this perspective, the experience of recent years is a clear testimony that external pressure, military threats, or coercive policies do not weaken national cohesion; rather, they reinforce a shared sense of resistance and the bond between the leadership and segments of society around core national principles. It highlights that such domestic economic issues are addressed within the framework of national stability, not through external intervention.

There exists an inviolable principle: “Sustainable national cohesion is achieved only in the light of full sovereignty over internal affairs and the rejection of any intervention or the politicisation of domestic developments by foreign powers.”

The Island:Wishful Israel-US assessment for regime change, following the Supreme Leader’s assassination failed. Against the backdrop of US success in Venezuela, they seemed to have wrongly asserted the situation and Iranian military response. How do you see the next few weeks as the US and Israel maintain a fragile ceasefire, regardless of some isolated incidents?

Ambassador: The assumptions that external pressure, military action, or targeted scenarios, such as the assassination of its leadership, would lead to structural political change in Iran, have repeatedly proven to be a strategic miscalculation. “Iran’s security architecture is not modelled after classic Western patterns that could be brought down, through sanctions or threats; rather, it possesses its own unique design.

Iran’s strategic decision-making is rooted in institutional continuity, national sovereignty, and a well-established defence and command structure—one that cannot be disrupted by external pressures or short-term military developments.”

Regarding the current situation, the existing ceasefire environment looks to be fragile and highly sensitive. As repeatedly stressed by our officials and leadership, stability cannot be sustained through coercive measures, continued military pressure, or selective escalation. Therefore, any lasting calm depends on adherence to commitments, respect for sovereignty, and cessation of hostile actions.

In the coming weeks, the situation will remain volatile, yet manageable, and Iran will continue to maintain its readiness to respond to any potential adventurism.

Iran continues to emphasise that sustainable regional security cannot be built on failed assumptions of regime change or military superiority, but only through recognition of political realities and mutual respect under international law.

The Island: Finally, the senseless killing of over 150 schoolgirls and teachers at an Iranian school, at the onset of the latest conflict, horrified the world. However, the response of Western governments, and various human rights bodies, seemed inadequate. Some refrained from commenting on the incident. The situation in Lebanon, too, is deteriorating. Why do they act differently when the perpetrators happened to be the US or Israel?

Ambassador: I believe that the disparity in reactions reflects a long-standing flaw in the international system: the selective application of international law and humanitarian principles, based on political considerations rather than universal standards.

As you noted, when incidents involve the US or Israel, many international actors—including certain Western governments and institutions—tend to interpret events through the narratives of ‘security,’ ‘self-defence,’ or ‘strategic necessity.’ The brutal attack on the Minab girls’ school, which resulted in the slaughter of over 168 students and teachers, has pulled back the curtain on the double standards of those who claim to champion human rights. While the smallest incidents in other countries trigger immediate global outcries. We witness a response characterised by silence, projection, and brazen falsehoods regarding this blatant crime—as well as the horrific atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. These tactics aim at nothing but distorting reality and whitewashing the perpetrators of these tragedies. This pattern has undermined the credibility of international law and the global human rights framework, as it ignores the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ and suggests that accountability is not applied equally to all members of the international community.

This is not merely a legal issue but an expression of a structural imbalance in the international order, where political alliances and strategic interests dictate the interpretation and enforcement of norms. Therefore, I maintain that: “The only way to restore trust in the international system is through the consistent and non-selective enforcement of international law, without exceptions or double standards, regardless of the identity of the parties involved.”

As a final word: “Ibn Khaldun 1332-1406, a famous philosopher and historian, believes that ‘politics is the product of geography.’ The essence of this hypothesis is that the temporary presence of extra-regional powers in West Asia and the Persian Gulf must not lead certain small coastal states of the Persian Gulf into a strategic miscalculation.

The time will come when outsiders are expelled from this region, leaving only the neighbours who are destined to coexist. Instead of focusing on Outsourced Security and legitimacy from distant powers, they must return to geographical realities. They ought to study history to recognise which nation has been the source of security and stability in the Persian Gulf for millennia.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Cutting across the brooding greenery,

Of the big city’s outlying wetlands,

That are verily its purifying lungs,

Are roads less traveled and sought,

That teem with Nature’s All,

Beginning with the tiniest forms of life,

To sprawling giants of the wilds,

Not to speak of birds and butterflies,

Rising to the skies in mesmeric flight…

But nature lovers are nowhere in sight,

Except for frolicking young couples,

Whose purses are pinching so much,

That they can’t afford costlier hideouts,

But there’s no denying that our wetlands,

Need to be right away protected,

Lest they win mention in the Red List,

Of earthly beings heading for extinction.

By Lynn Ockersz

The US has been complicit in the 9 July 2022 assault on the President’s House. A new book, on the regime change project, by renowned political commentator Mohan Samaranayake, examined the then US Ambassador Julie Chung’s role in the operation. Referring to her twitter messages before the final assault, the author pointed out how she warned the government and the military against the advance on the President’s House while reassuring protection for the attacking party.

Throughout the March 31-July 14, 2022 period, Chung blatantly intervened in the government’s response, thereby preventing tangible action being taken to neutralise the growing threat.

Bringing up claims regarding Chung/ Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay putting pressure on Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to accept the presidency, Samaranayake declared that only Abeywardena could clear the continuing controversy regarding the intervention made by an envoy. Regardless of who visited the Speaker, at his official residenc, as the JVP-led crowds prepared to bring Parliament under their control on 13 May, 2022, what we should keep in mind is that it was a joint US-Indian project. Who definitely met the then Speaker, followed by a delegation consisting of Buddhist and Catholic clergy and civil society, who, too, echoed the foreign instigated agenda, is irrelevant.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Political and foreign affairs commentator Mohan Samaranayake meticulously deals with the overthrowing of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2022, in a manner that exposed the failure on the part of the then ruling party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), to recognise the US-Indian plot that was in the making no sooner he assumed office as the President, or even before that. Samaranayake also discusses the pathetic police and armed forces response to the threat (Chapter 7).

Samaranayake dealt with the possibility of at least a section of the Cabinet-of-Ministers, unwittingly contributing to the overall strategy meant to undercut the government and isolate the President.

‘Regime Change project 2022’, authored by one-time UN public communications staffer, at its Colombo office, who also held several government appointments over a period of time, including under Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure, found fault with Ministers Dullas Alahaperuma and Udaya Gammanpila, leader of the SLPP constituent, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya.

Samaranayake shed light on a frightening situation, within the ruling party, that lacked at least a basic plan of action, struggling to cope up with internal strife. He singled out the Basil Rajapaksa-led group as the worst of the offenders. Samaranayake is spot on. The author quite rightly declared that the triumph of the regime change project was nothing but the disintegration of the nationalistic group, within the ruling bloc. Unfortunately, the SLPP seemed to have failed to realise the gravity of that situation.

Pointing out that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa hadn’t been the leader of the ruling party, in one line, the author emphasised how the authoritarian conduct of the Basil Rajapaksa–led section of the parliamentary group caused rapid deterioration. The SLPP secured a near 2/3 majority at the 2020 parliamentary election. Formed in 2016, the SLPP, having won 18 electoral districts, bagged 145 seats. Basil Rajapaksa’s group didn’t tolerate dissent. That group slammed Wimal Weerawansa when he urged the SLFP to create an influential position for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa who ended up sacking Weerawansa and Gammanpila for some other mattter. The author criticised the President’s action.

It would be interesting to ascertain how the conspirators exploited the discord, within the ruling party, as they advanced the anti-Gotabaya strategy. Samaranayake, like others who authored books on overthrowing President Rajapaksa, acknowledged that the economic fallout, caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine, facilitated the operation.

The leader of Jathika Nidahas Peramuna, Wimal Weerawansa, was the first to release a book on the regime change project. “Nine: The Hidden Story,’’ launched in April 2023, caused quite a controversy over claims of direct US intervention. Then US Ambassador Julie Chung denied Weerawansa’s revelation that she asked Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to take over the presidency, regardless of constitutional impediments. Later the then Speaker’s indirect admission of what transpired proved much of Weerawansa’s assertions, though there is till controversy over the identity of the envoy who visited the Speaker at his official residence on 13 July, 2022. Remember the old adage that ambassadors are there to lie abroad for their country.

Weerawansa was followed by the much-respected writer, Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: Systems Change or Anarchy), ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (The Conspiracy to Oust Me from the Presidency), Maj. Gen. K. B. Egodawela who served on President Rajapaksa’s staff (Aragalaya: From Love to Violence), President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s media chief Prof. Sunanada Madduma Bandara (Aragalaye Balaya), Treasury Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana (Sri Lanka’s Economic Revival – Reflection on the Journey from Crisis to Recovery), and expert current affairs commentator Asanga Abeygunasekera (Winds of Change).

However, Samaranayake obviously has paid extra attention to the SLPP’s inner shortcomings that contributed to the overall success of the regime change operation. At the tail end of the first chapter, Samaranayake raised a spate of questions regarding the terrifying possibility of inside help that enabled the conspirators to carry out the regime change operation. Samaranayake asked whether those within the government caused economic deterioration deliberately, in support of the move against the President.

Referring to economic indicators and comparing the official figures, the author stressed the deterioration of the national economy during the Yahapalana administration (2015 to 2019) contributed to the economic collapse, like borrowing as much as USD12 billion by Wickremesinghe’s regime at high interests, however all that was conveniently put on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa by convenient critics leaving out elements of truth disadvantageous to their agenda. Propagation of false and politically motivated narratives, according to Samaranayake, seemed to have overwhelmed the President and his sharply divided parliamentary group.

On the basis of a disclosure made by the ex-President, Samaranayake highlighted how a far reaching decision to unilaterally suspend debt repayment was taken even without consulting the President.

Swiss Embassy affair

Samaranayake, who served as the Director General of President Gotabaya Rajapaksas’s Media Division, examined the regime change operation, taking into consideration what was dubbed as the Swiss Embassy affair, at the onset of his administration. Having acknowledged President Rajapaksa thwarted a diabolical Swiss plot to tarnish his government, using local Embassy employee Ganiya Bannister Francis (Siriyalatha Perera is her original name/She now lives abroad) from discrediting Sri Lanka, the author asserted that the SLPP’s failure to take the then Swiss Ambassador Hanspeter Mock to task for false flag operation influenced those who planned the regime change to go ahead.

The SLPP should reexamine its response to the Swiss Embassy affair. Perhaps, Sri Lanka should revisit the incident, particularly against the backdrop of accusations that Hanspeter Mock pursued an utterly contemptible agenda targeting Sri Lanka. Among the incidents cited was the Ambassador facilitating Chief Inspector Nishantha de Silva of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) leaving the country without government authorisation.

Samaranayake’s assertion that the 2022 colour revolution was an extension of the 2015 regime change operation seems controversial to some people, though the writer believes the first such project was mounted in the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s triumph over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The US backed UNP-JVP-TNA project to field war-winning Army Commander Sarath Fonseka as the common presidential candidate against incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa that exposed the US hand. There cannot be any dispute over that.

The seriousness of Samaranayake’s allegation that ex-parliamentarian Hirunika Premachandra (SJB), on behalf of the regime change operation, tested President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s defences during protest conducted outside the President’s private residence at Pangiriwatta, Mirihana, on 5 March, 2022. The issue at hand is whether the SJB authorised Hirunika’s actions at Pangiriwatta. But, Samaranayake’s criticism of the President and the armed forces, as well as the intelligence services, for failing to take tangible measures against the growing and deepening regime change threat. The author went to the extent of describing them as ,silent onlookers. The accusation that the President refused to believe that he was the target of the regime change operation underscored the SLPP’s pathetic response to the threat.

Samaranayake painted a bleak picture of the situation by quoting Egodawela, who served the Army, like Gotabaya, as having asserted that the March 31, 2022 violent protest was meant to assassinate President Rajapaksa. In post-Aragalaya examination of events/developments, Samaranayake blamed the police and armed forces for not neutralising gangs that unleashed violence in the aftermath of the attack on the Galle Face protesters, on 9 May, 2022. But, unfortunately, Samaranayake failed to pay sufficient attention to the failure on the part of the police and the armed forces to prevent Temple Trees mounting the first attack. There is no doubt that Temple Trees ordered the attack in a desperate bid to break the siege on the Presidential Secretariat, contrary to the instructions issued by President Gotabaya.

Samaranayake, who studied the situation, leading to the overthrowing of President Gotabaya, March 31 to July 14, 2022, period, and subsequent developments for nearly two years, emphasised the alleged bid to kill the President, and several others, and display their bodies on 9 July, 2022, following the storming of the President’s House. Based on social media posts, the author made the shocking claim that a private local and a foreign television channel had been there to telecast the displaying of bodies.

Perhaps, the plot could have succeeded if not for the timely intervention made by the then Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugettenne, who deployed SLNS Gajabahu to move the President and First Lady Anoma, who received the appreciation of all for being humble.

Ranil’s role and Yahapalana fault

Wickremesinghe played a crucial role in the project to oust President Rajapaksa. That is the undeniable truth. Beleaguered Gotabaya’s decision to accommodate Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister, in April 2022, and then elevate him as the President, wouldn’t change the ugly truth. The author didn’t mince his words when he explained the swift collapse of the externally backed operation, soon after Gotabaya’s ouster. Those who funded the regime change project, lawyers/BASL involved in it and men and women who pursued political and religious agendas, according to the author, felt satisfied when Gotabaya stepped down. “They knew when to halt the campaign,” declared Samaranayake whose criticism of the President and the SLPP should attract their attention.

Samaranayake asserted that Wickremesinghe’s readiness to swiftly deploy the military and police to chase away those who remained outside the Presidential Secretariat, and other places, too, after Gotabaya’s ouster, contributed to the normalisation of the situation.

Having provided muscle to the protest campaign at the beginning, the UNP and the SJB cannot, under any circumstances, absolve themselves of the responsibility for the violence unleashed by organised gangs. Samaranayake’s clear stand that such violence cannot be justified, on the basis of Temple Trees allowing some staunch supporters to attack the Galle Face protesters out of sheer desperation, should be commended. SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, who sought political mileage out of the rapidly developing situation on 9 May, 2022, following the attack on the Galle Face protesters, was nearly killed when he visited the protest site. If not for the quick response of his bodyguards, Aragalaya activists could have captured him and other SJB lawmakers. Had that happened, the result could have been catastrophic.

One of the most controversial claims made by the author was the Chinese involvement in the regime change project. Although allegations and claims pertaining to the US, European and Indian interventions are in the public domain, the alleged direct Chinese involvement is a matter of grave concern. The author, without hesitation, named China and Russia in a group that included the US, the UK, EU, Japan and India hell-bent on achieving their political, economic and military objectives at the expense of other countries. Citing Sri Lanka as a case in point, the author methodically discussed post-Second WW regime change operations elsewhere while paying attention to the US-China conflict that undermined Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

Samaranayake mentioned the US backing for retired General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election, less than a year after the eradication of the LTTE as an instance that proved the US determination to achieve its objectives at any cost. Had the author been aware Fonseka was categorised alongside the Rajapaksa brothers as war criminals. It is like the way US treats ISIS as good terrorists and bad terrorist depending on whom they back. WikiLeaks released the then US Ambassador Patricia Butenis’s classified missive to Washington in addition to a spate of other documents which revealed directed US involvement in selecting Fonseka as the common candidate.

Samaranayake squarely differed with those who build their narratives on the basis of the actions of the then US Ambassador Julie Chung (2022 to January 2026) and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland (2021 to 2024). Samaranayake is quite right in his assessment that, like many other US officials, the likes of Chung and Nuland were only tools to achieve overall US objectives. In the case of hapless Sri Lanka, the US strategy was/ is meant to ensure that Colombo remained aligned with the Indo-Pacific doctrine regardless of political changes. The way the US and its partner in crime India embraced and propped up JVP/NPP and again reiterated their approach.

An Act like no other

Samaranayake didn’t even bother to mention Siriwardena’s book that dealt with the developments, essentially with focus on economics leading to President Gotabaya’s ouster. Similarly, there hadn’t been a reference to ‘Winds of Change.’ (https://island.lk/aragalaya-gr-blames-cia-in-asanga-abeyagoonasekeras-explosive-narrative/)

Let me briefly discuss a major difference between Samaranayake’s take on economic crisis and that of Siriwardena who confidently asserted that Gotabaya’s presidency could have been saved if the government secured IMF loan facility. ( https://island.lk/aragalaya-could-have-been-thwarted-and-grs-presidency-saved-mahinda-siriwardana/)

According to Samaranayake’s narrative, the sudden suspension of debt repayment scheme even without consulting President Gotabaya had been a calculated move to entrap Sri Lanka in IMF strategy.

It would be pertinent to mention that President Wickremesinghe, in July, 2024, managed to adopt the Economic Transformation Act without a vote, in line with the overall IMF/other lending agencies’ strategy to ensure Sri Lanka remained aligned with the IMF, regardless of political changes. Having opposed the IMF outwardly over the years, the JVP/NPP pledged its allegiance to the IMF, without any hesitation, once installed in power at the expense of its purported original principles. There had never been such an Act that forbade political parties of pursuing policies contrary to specific IMF dictates.

Samaranayake explained how the JVP/NPP completely changed its approach in the wake of the 2024 national elections. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who, in his capacity as the leader of the JVP, as well as its parliamentary group, in 2015 October, lashed out in Parliament against unbridled activities of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Jaffna. In April 2025 President Dissanayake entered into seven vital MoUs with Premier Modi. One dealt with defence, and a few months later Sri Lanka allowed Japan to sell controlling interests in the strategic ship builder Colombo Dockyard Limited (CDL), once carefully nursed by late National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali who was assassinated by the LTTE, to Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) affiliated with the Indian Ministry of Defence.

The way Sri Lanka succumbed to Western powers and India and ended up in their domain, therefore, as Samaranayake predicted, there may never be a comprehensive investigation into the despicable regime change operation. Alleging that Wickremesinghe conveniently allowed those responsible at all levels, including the military and police to go scot-free, the author asserted that Dissanayake, a key beneficiary of that operation, too, may never intervene.

Premier Modi, who sort of gave his blessings to the despicable decapitating operation against Iran, by visiting Tel Aviv, should realise that he is no darling of the West and he, too, will be stabbed in the back as these evil pale faces have done to others if they suspect that his country might be a future threat, both militarily and economically, to them. The US denied visa to Modi in March 2005. The State Department acted in terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing Modi’s alleged responsibility for “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” related to the 2002 Gujarat violence.

Referring to various uprisings and revolutions that shaped the world over the past several centuries and those who propagated lies as they advanced frightening strategy here, the author confidently asserted that the vast majority didn’t realise that they were being used in a high profile regime change project.

Samaranayake’s narrative is a must read, as it is a no holds barred examination of available facts, sometimes ignored by political parties, the judiciary and the media. Having read all books that dealt with regime change projects, except the one by Maj. Gen. Egodawella, the writer is of the view that Samaranayake went to extraordinary lengths to educate the people of the challenges faced by post-war Sri Lanka.

The challenge to the country’s unitary status seems to be growing in the absence of a cohesive strategy regardless of political interests to safeguard national interests. The situation seems so bad and further deteriorating rapidly, the 17tth anniversary of armed forces triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism appears to be irrelevant. Let us hope Samaranayake’s thought-provoking narrative receives public attention and influences the decision-makers to change their direction.

In fact, there had never been such a comprehensive examination of regime change operation, taking into consideration a wide-range of facts/issues to prove the US dominance here, though China still runs many critically important projects. Unassuming Samaranayake, like Thoradeniya, remain among a small group of people who had the strength and courage to tell the truth.