By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The sinking of the Iranian warship IRIS Dena by a U.S. submarine near Sri Lanka has sparked debate in India about maritime security. The vessel had recently participated in naval exercises hosted by India before its demise. Sri Lanka’s navy rescued 32 sailors and recovered 87 bodies from the international waters. Meanwhile, another Iranian warship, the IRIS Bushehr, has entered Sri Lanka’s exclusive economic zone, with the Sri Lankan navy transferring its crew and preparing to take over the vessel.
Read the original article here
The recent sinking of an Iranian warship by the United States has sparked considerable discussion, particularly concerning the circumstances surrounding the vessel’s demise. It’s understood that this particular warship had recently participated in an exhibition hosted by India, and was reportedly sailing home when the incident occurred. This timing and context are crucial to understanding the broader implications and public reactions to the event.
One of the most frequently raised points is the assertion that the Iranian warship was unarmed at the time of the sinking, purportedly as a condition for its participation in the Indian exhibition. If true, this detail significantly alters the perception of the event, shifting it from a direct confrontation with an armed enemy to something potentially more complex and controversial. The idea of a warship sailing unarmed, even for an exhibition, raises questions about the captain’s judgment and the operational decisions made.
Following the exhibition, there’s speculation about where the warship should have proceeded. The suggestion is that sailing to a neutral port, such as one in India, would have been a more prudent course of action, especially given the volatile geopolitical climate and the presence of U.S. carrier groups in the vicinity of Iran. The decision to navigate through what is essentially a war zone with potentially unwary intentions seems to have been a critical miscalculation, leading to its identification as a legitimate target by U.S. forces.
The very nature of the vessel as a warship, regardless of its armament status at that specific moment, is a central point of contention. From a military perspective, a warship is inherently a military asset and, therefore, a legitimate target during wartime. The presence of its armament, even if not actively deployed or even if temporarily disabled for an exhibition, means it’s still a warship belonging to a belligerent nation. This distinction between a civilian vessel and a military one is fundamental in the rules of engagement.
The specifics of the Iranian warship’s armament have also been detailed, highlighting its advanced capabilities, including a vertical launching system, various missiles, naval guns, cannons, heavy machine guns, and anti-submarine torpedo launchers. While some of these, like the anti-submarine torpedo launchers, might have been less relevant in the immediate context, the overall profile of the ship indicates it was a significant military asset. The question arises why this asset was put in such a vulnerable position, making it an easy target.
The unfolding of this event has led to a strong sense of unease and a desire for distance from the conflict for observers, particularly those from countries not directly involved. The feeling is that the war itself is inherently “stupid” and destined to have negative long-term consequences for the United States and its allies. This perspective underscores a broader disillusionment with the ongoing hostilities and their justification.
While acknowledging that the warship was a valid military target during a declared war, there’s also a critical stance on the U.S. Navy’s actions. Specifically, there’s no apparent obligation for the U.S. to rescue individuals from a downed enemy vessel, but the perceived lack of effort or even refusal to rescue survivors, with the Sri Lankan Navy reportedly recovering bodies, has been described as “disgusting.” Some suggest the ship was destroyed more for symbolic or propaganda purposes than for any immediate tactical necessity.
The decision to sail a warship, even one ostensibly participating in a peaceful exercise, through a war zone is seen by many as a profoundly risky and ill-advised move. The argument is made that if the intention was to return to a state of readiness, the captain should have ensured the vessel was properly armed before transiting through such a dangerous area. The phrase “FAFO” (F*** Around, Find Out) emerges as a stark encapsulation of this viewpoint – that the captain’s actions directly led to the tragic outcome.
There’s a contrasting view that highlights the potential hypocrisy in how such events are perceived. If an American warship were in a similar situation, the reaction from Americans would likely be one of outrage and accusations of terrorism, even if the vessel were unarmed. This points to a perceived double standard in the emotional and political responses to wartime incidents. The current conflict is seen by some as a “war of choice” that is inadvertently creating more terrorists and martyrs, with fears of Iran becoming another Gaza.
However, a more detached perspective reiterates that in wartime, enemy warships are legitimate targets, and the crew members are considered enemy combatants. The ultimate blame, from this viewpoint, lies with the Iranian government for initiating or escalating the conflict. This perspective acknowledges the human tragedy involved – the loss of sailors with families and dreams – but frames it within the grim realities of war and the responsibility of leadership.
The notion that the Iranian warship was “unarmed” is also met with skepticism. Many believe that warships, even during joint training exercises, never sail completely unarmed. The high tensions in international waters, coupled with Iran’s history of aggressive actions towards commercial shipping, make the idea of an unarmed warship a highly improbable scenario. Being in such a vulnerable state near the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint, is considered an exceptionally poor decision.
The comment that “the regime brought this war on their people” suggests a belief that the Iranian government’s policies and actions are the root cause of the conflict and the subsequent suffering of its citizens, including the sailors lost at sea. The idea of a “free pass” in wartime is also dismissed; if war has been declared, then military engagements are to be expected.
The incident is also described as a “bitch move” by the U.S., particularly if the intelligence indicated the ship was unarmed and returning from a declared exercise involving numerous countries, including the U.S. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the exercise just before the sinking, followed by the attack and alleged refusal to rescue survivors, paints a picture of deliberate targeting and a lack of humanitarian concern. The ship’s reported wait for permission to dock in a neutral port for over ten hours further emphasizes its vulnerable and potentially peaceful intentions.
Ultimately, the event serves as a stark reminder of the brutal nature of war. The tragedy of the lost sailors, regardless of their military status or the political complexities, is undeniable. Yet, within the context of ongoing hostilities, the actions taken, while perceived as cruel by some, are also viewed by others as consistent with the established rules of engagement between warring nations. The differing perspectives highlight the deep divisions and conflicting narratives surrounding this volatile geopolitical situation.