WASHINGTON — International law specialists conclude that a deadly submarine torpedo strike by U.S. forces against an Iranian naval vessel appears to comply with both international and American military regulations, although uncertainty remains about whether adequate rescue operations were conducted for the 32 survivors.
According to legal scholars, questions are emerging regarding the legal foundation of the broader U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran and the response following the torpedo strike on the IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean.
The submarine attack on the Dena in international waters off Sri Lanka resulted in 87 fatalities, while 32 Iranian naval personnel were pulled from the water alive.
Marko Milanovic, an international law professor at the University of Reading in Britain, characterized the broader Iranian operations as “a clear violation of the UN charter,” but noted the Dena represented “a clear military target.”
“Targeting a military vessel is not a war crime,” Milanovic stated.
According to the Indian government, the warship had recently completed naval training exercises hosted by India and was traveling through international waters on its return journey.
Rachel VanLandingham, a Southwestern Law School professor and former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel who worked as a judge advocate general, explained that neither the ship’s distance from active combat zones nor its participation in joint naval training affected the strike’s legality.
“It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t firing at the time,” she explained regarding the Iranian vessel. “It matters that it can be used to fire at American military assets.”
However, the events following the torpedo impact may present legal concerns.
“The attack may not violate the law of war, but that’s only the start of the analysis,” explained Brian Finucane, a former decade-long member of the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser. “What happens after the attack is another matter.”
Under international humanitarian law, U.S. forces should have implemented “all possible measures” to assist in locating and rescuing wounded or shipwrecked individuals.
The Pentagon’s Defense Department Law of War Manual establishes identical obligations for American naval forces. However, the manual acknowledges that “practical limitations,” such as a submarine’s confined space, might necessitate alerting other vessels, aircraft, or nearby officials about survivor locations.
Taking individuals aboard a submarine — among the U.S. Navy’s most secure vessels — also creates complications.
A U.S. official, speaking anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the information, verified that American forces notified Sri Lankan officials of the ship’s coordinates for search and rescue operations after the attack.
Sri Lanka’s foreign minister, Vijitha Herath, informed Parliament that the nation’s navy received an emergency signal from the damaged vessel and deployed ships and aircraft for rescue operations.
However, when Sri Lankan naval forces arrived at the site, the ship had disappeared, leaving “only some oil patches and life rafts,” according to navy spokesman Commander Buddhika Sampath. “We found people floating on the water.”
Finucane noted that without additional details, “it’s hard to evaluate whether there were possible measures they could have taken. But at a minimum, they should be explaining this.”
Eugene R. Fidell, a Yale Law School military law instructor, suggested it “may be a long time before we have a full account of who did what and when in the aftermath of the attack. If as it appears, they alerted the coastal authorities, they did right to do so.”
Nevertheless, challenging questions persist, Fidell observed, particularly regarding whether rescue teams could reach the location quickly enough. “So until we get more clarity, granular clarity, I think it’s premature to make any judgments,” he stated. “I’m being circumspect, but I think It’s important to be circumspect.”
