By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tragically, three Indian seafarers initially reported missing after a U.S. military strike on the Palau-flagged tanker MT Settebello have been confirmed deceased following the recovery of two additional bodies. The U.S. Central Command stated the “precision” strike was a response to the vessel’s alleged non-compliance and attempted transport of Iranian oil in violation of a blockade. India has since lodged a strong protest with Washington, highlighting concerns over the targeting of commercial shipping and the safety of its seafarers.
Read the original article here
The devastating news has emerged of three Indian seafarers confirmed dead following a U.S. strike on a tanker in the Gulf of Oman. This tragic incident has sent ripples of shock and condemnation across the globe, raising serious questions about the actions of the U.S. military and the broader implications for international relations. The tanker, identified as carrying Iranian oil, was reportedly targeted after allegedly failing to comply with U.S. instructions. However, the focus has sharply shifted to the loss of innocent lives, with the recovery of the final two bodies bringing an end to any faint hopes of survival for the missing crew.
This event has ignited a firestorm of anger, particularly directed towards the United States, with many labeling the nation as a “global bully” and questioning its role as an international peacekeeper. The narrative emerging from many observations paints a picture of a superpower that frequently resorts to aggressive military action, often with severe collateral damage, and then leverages its economic and military might to silence criticism. The sentiment is that other nations are left feeling powerless, threatened by sanctions or military intervention if they dare to voice dissent against U.S. foreign policy.
There’s a palpable sense of frustration that the world feels beholden to the U.S., and that the burden of responsibility for this aggression seems to fall on those who voted for leadership perceived as war-mongering, as well as those who remained indifferent. The consequences, it is felt, are borne by innocent populations worldwide, leading to a desperate hope for a karmic reckoning. Some have drawn chilling parallels to past incidents, like a U.S. police officer reportedly mocking the death of an Indian student, suggesting a broader insensitivity and devaluation of non-American lives within certain segments of American society and its institutions.
The question of whether such an attack would have occurred if the vessel were Chinese highlights a perceived double standard in U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that strategic alliances or geopolitical considerations might influence decision-making regarding military engagement. This has led to accusations of American “pathetic” actions and a growing disdain for the nation’s current global posture, with some even suggesting that the U.S. military’s actions are akin to terrorism, especially considering the U.S. president’s own controversial rhetoric and past legal challenges.
Historical grievances also resurface with this incident, as many Indians recall the 1971 war when the U.S. reportedly sent warships in support of Pakistan, an action only countered by the Soviet Union’s intervention. This memory fuels a strong sense of injustice and a demand for India to take a more assertive stance on the global stage, moving beyond what some perceive as fear or strategic dependence on the U.S. in countering China. The idea of the U.S. being a “world’s policeman” is increasingly viewed with skepticism and contempt, especially when such actions result in the tragic loss of life and environmental damage.
The immediate reaction from many is one of disbelief and confusion, questioning why a more diplomatic or less lethal approach, such as boarding the vessel, wasn’t pursued. The rationale provided – that the tanker failed to comply with instructions and was transporting Iranian oil – is seen by some as insufficient justification for lethal force, particularly when it leads to the death of seafarers from a neutral nation. This has fueled fears that such aggressive tactics could escalate tensions and potentially trigger wider conflicts, with some directly linking these actions to an attempt to initiate World War III.
There’s also a stark condemnation of the very concept of military strikes as a first resort for non-compliance. The idea that individuals or vessels are simply “murdered” for not obeying orders is a deeply disturbing prospect for many, stripping away any notion of due process or proportionality. The environmental consequences, such as the significant oil spill that likely resulted from the strike, are also a point of concern, adding another layer of devastation to an already tragic event. This paints a picture of a U.S. military acting with what is perceived as gross incompetence and a disregard for human life and the environment.
Furthermore, there is a critical perspective on the role of the tanker’s crew themselves, with some questioning why they would risk their lives by attempting to navigate blockades, whether Iranian or U.S. imposed. However, this perspective is often overshadowed by the larger critique of the U.S. military’s actions, with many believing that even if the crew were acting against regulations, the response was disproportionate and unacceptable. The notion that the U.S. is alienating allies and potentially sowing seeds of future conflict by its aggressive actions is a recurring theme.
The sheer scale of the international backlash suggests a profound loss of trust in the U.S. military and its foreign policy. The hope expressed by some is that India, a nation with a long memory and a growing global influence, will finally take decisive action, perhaps even retaliating in self-defense. The question of whether the U.S. will ever be designated as a terrorist state or face repercussions for its actions is being raised, with the grim prediction that if the U.S. faces future terrorist attacks, there will be little sympathy from those who have suffered due to its policies. The memory of past incidents, like the U.S. presence during the 1971 war, continues to shape perceptions and fuel a sense of enduring resentment.