By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This incident raises concerns about the U.S. Navy submarine’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, specifically regarding the duty to rescue shipwrecked sailors. International law experts assert that failing to assist Iranian sailors from the sunken frigate Dena, even with the complexities of submarine operations, may have violated these conventions. This disregard for established laws of armed conflict could jeopardize American service members in future engagements, as hostile nations may retaliate against captured or stranded U.S. personnel.
Read the original article here
The sinking of an Iranian ship by the U.S. has raised serious questions about potential war crimes. The circumstances surrounding the event, including the vessel’s status and the actions taken afterward, have led many to believe that international laws of conflict may have been violated.
The argument that the sinking itself constitutes a war crime often centers on the alleged unarmed nature of the Iranian ship. If it was indeed unarmed and participating in exercises with the U.S. and India, its destruction by a U.S. submarine firing a torpedo could be viewed as an unwarranted act of aggression. The abrupt withdrawal of the U.S. from the joint exercises right before the incident adds a layer of suspicion to the unfolding events.
Beyond the act of sinking, the failure to rescue survivors has been highlighted as a particularly concerning aspect. Survivors were reportedly left to drown, which, according to some interpretations of international humanitarian law, could constitute a war crime in itself, separate from the initial attack. Even if the sinking were deemed a legitimate act of war, the obligation to assist shipwrecked individuals is a crucial tenet.
However, a counterargument suggests that labeling the sinking a war crime might be a stretch under international law. Proponents of this view contend that if the U.S. and Iran are considered to be in a state of military conflict, any vessel belonging to the enemy navy, regardless of whether it is actively engaged in combat operations or is currently armed, is a legitimate target. The argument is made that ships, even if currently unarmed, are still considered part of a nation’s military apparatus and thus fair game in wartime.
Furthermore, some have pointed out that even if the ship was unarmed, its status as a commissioned warship of the Iranian navy would still render it a legal target. This perspective emphasizes that the distinction between combatants and civilians is paramount, and a military vessel, by definition, falls into the former category. The act of leaving port, even for training exercises, meant the ship was considered active and not “hors de combat” (out of combat), making it a valid target.
The practicalities for a submarine also play a role in the discussion about rescue efforts. It’s argued that submarines, by their design, have limited capacity to take on large numbers of survivors. Their primary function is not passenger transport, and attempting a mass rescue could compromise the submarine itself. In such scenarios, the established procedure is often for the submarine to radio for assistance from other vessels capable of carrying out a rescue and then to monitor the survivors until help arrives. This is presented as standard operating procedure for submarines, not an act specific to a particular administration.
Despite these counterarguments, the sentiment persists that the U.S. has a history of such actions. The repeated use of phrases like “may have committed a war crime” is seen by some as a deliberate understatement or an attempt to shield the nation from accountability. The sinking is viewed by many as yet another incident to be added to a growing list of alleged U.S. war crimes, a pattern that erodes trust and breeds resentment.
The sinking of the Iranian ship is also framed within a broader context of geopolitical tensions and perceived American exceptionalism. Critics question why the international community has remained silent on alleged war crimes elsewhere, such as those in Gaza, and therefore express little surprise that the U.S. would expect similar leniency for its own actions. This perspective suggests a double standard where the U.S. is not held to the same international legal scrutiny as other nations.
Ultimately, the discussion around the sinking of the Iranian ship is complex, touching upon definitions of war crimes, the interpretation of international humanitarian law, and the perceived actions and responsibilities of global powers. Whether deemed a war crime or a tragic but legally permissible act of war, the event has undeniably added to the ongoing debate about the conduct of modern warfare and the accountability of nations on the international stage.