By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prior to its sinking by a US submarine near Sri Lanka, the Iranian warship IRIS Dena had been offered shelter by India. This offer was extended in anticipation of escalating tensions between the US and Iran, following air strikes that began on February 28. The Dena, which had participated in India’s International Fleet Review and MILAN-2026 exercise, was torpedoed on March 4, approximately 20 nautical miles west of Galle.
Read the original article here
The IRIS Dena, an Iranian warship, was reportedly offered shelter by India shortly before its sinking by the United States. This offer of safe harbor came in the context of escalating tensions between the US and Iran, following air strikes initiated by Israel and the US across Iran in late February. The Dena had been in Visakhapatnam, India, participating in naval exercises, including the International Fleet Review and MILAN-2026, which concluded on February 25. It was torpedoed in the early hours of March 4, approximately 20 nautical miles west of Galle, Sri Lanka, according to the Indian Navy.
This act of offering shelter highlights a complex geopolitical situation and presents an interesting facet of international relations. It suggests a desire by India to potentially de-escalate or avoid further conflict, even as hostilities were brewing. The timing is crucial here; the ship left India before the outright conflict escalated significantly, indicating that the offer of shelter was made when the situation was already precarious, but perhaps not yet at its absolute peak. This action by India, in providing a potential sanctuary to an Iranian naval vessel amidst rising global tensions, stands in contrast to the subsequent sinking of the ship.
The narrative surrounding the Dena’s final moments is subject to various interpretations. Some argue that by continuing its journey towards a conflict zone instead of accepting the offered shelter, the Dena’s fate was sealed by the decisions of its commander. It’s important to note that the ship was a warship in active naval service, and while debate exists regarding its armament at the time of sinking, it was identified as a military target. The assertion that the IRIS Dena was entirely unarmed is heavily contested. While the exact disposition of its ordnance may be debated, it was a warship with weapons systems in place.
Examining the legality of the sinking itself reveals further layers. A warship in international waters is generally considered a legitimate target during wartime. The argument that being outside a “declared combat zone” renders a target illegitimate doesn’t hold water in international law. Furthermore, the status of being “unarmed” does not automatically grant immunity. Military assets, even if not actively engaged in combat or having expended their ordnance, can still be considered legitimate targets. Being “out of combat” is a specific legal status that applies to groups like civilians, the wounded, prisoners of war, or those actively surrendering – none of which applied to the IRIS Dena.
Questions also arise about the proportionality of the force used and the necessity of demanding surrender. In warfare, a torpedo is considered a proportionate response to sink a military vessel. International law does not mandate identifying oneself and demanding surrender before engaging a target, especially for a submarine where surfacing could compromise its stealth and safety. Tactical surprise is a fundamental aspect of warfare. Similarly, the obligation to render aid to a sunken vessel’s crew is contingent on “military exigencies,” meaning ships are not required to risk their own operational effectiveness or safety.
The broader context of the war itself raises legitimate arguments about its legality. While self-defense is permitted under international law, the justifications for pre-emptive or preventative actions can be complex. However, even if the war’s initiation is deemed illegal, this does not automatically transform every act within it into a war crime. Culpability for acts of war often rests with higher authorities responsible for the decision to engage in conflict, rather than necessarily with individual commanders on the ground who are operating under the prevailing conditions of war. For the submarine and the IRIS Dena, they were engaged in a conflict, and thus legitimate targets for each other.
Neutral ports typically have restrictions for military ships during wartime, often requiring them to be impounded until the conflict’s end. The IRIS Dena had the option to seek refuge in such a port, as other Iranian vessels reportedly did. However, continuing its journey home, driven by military doctrine, pride, and prestige, meant facing considerable risks, especially given its status as one of Iran’s newest and most capable warships. The ship’s decision to sail on, despite the offer of Indian shelter and the looming conflict, highlights a commitment to its mission and national pride, even if it ultimately proved to be a perilous choice.