By Dr Sarath Obeysekera 

Quote 

Peace talks between the United States, Israel, and Iran should have been mediated by an independent Buddhist country such as Thailand, Myanmar, or even Sri Lanka.

If all three countries are on one side and another country brings in a Muslim perspective, the talks cannot be effectively mediated by a Muslim country. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan showed a partisan approach even before the peace talks began. This was evident when he published a statement against Israel.

Another candidate could be China, which, with some level of support for Iran, could have a stronger hand in persuading the United States to come to an amicable solution. China could even signal to the United States that it would openly support Iran.

unquote

But being American origin AI gave me following opinion 

Quote 

Countries such as Thailand, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka may appear culturally neutral in a conflict involving Israel, Iran, and the United States.

However, effective mediation depends less on religion and more on:

• Diplomatic leverage (ability to influence parties)

• Trust from all sides

• Economic or security stakes

These Buddhist-majority countries generally lack strategic leverage over the US, Israel, or Iran. So even if they are neutral, they may not be effective mediators.

And having a known experienced diplomat to coordinate 

2. Should Muslim countries be excluded?

It’s not accurate to assume a Muslim country cannot mediate impartially. For example:

• Qatar has successfully mediated conflicts involving Western and regional actors.

• Oman played a quiet but crucial role in US–Iran backchannel talks leading up to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Regarding Pakistan, you are right that public statements by officials can affect perceived neutrality—but that applies to any country. Even Western mediators often face accusations of bias.

3. What about China as a mediator?

China is an interesting case. It has:

• Strong ties with Iran

• Major economic influence globally

• Increasing diplomatic ambition

In fact, China recently brokered a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran—a significant achievement.

However:

• The United States may not fully trust China as a neutral broker

• Israel’s security dependence on the US complicates China’s role

• China signaling it would support Iran” openly (as you suggested) would actually reduce its neutrality, making mediation harder

4. What actually works in peace mediation?

Successful mediation usually comes from:

• Countries trusted by both sides (even if not perfectly neutral)

• Or multi-party frameworks, e.g.:

• United Nations

• Backchannel diplomacy involving several states

5. Where Sri Lanka could fit

Sri Lanka could still play a role—but more realistically as:

• A host for dialogue

• A neutral venue for Track 2 diplomacy (informal talks)

• A supporter within multilateral platforms

Given your experience pushing strategic initiatives (like Trincomalee), a more practical idea would be positioning Sri Lanka as a neutral diplomatic hub, similar to how Switzerland operates.

Bottom line

• Neutrality based on religion alone is not enough

• Influence, trust, and strategic weight matter more

• China can play a role—but not as an openly partisan actor

• Smaller neutral countries like Sri Lanka can contribute, but usually in supporting roles rather than leading mediation