nuclear-news

Not so quiet death – the US orders to kill the Iranian Navy’s Dena and its crew

The deliberate killing of survivors at sea represents one of the most clearly defined war crimes in international humanitarian law, with prohibitions stretching back more than a century and codified in multiple treaties and military manuals. The fundamental principle underlying these prohibitions is that individuals who are hors de combat � out of combat due to shipwreck, wounds, surrender, or other incapacitation � must not be made the object of attack. This principle applies universally in armed conflicts and represents a core tenet of the laws of war that balances military necessity with humanitarian considerations.

John Helmer, Dance with Bears, Sat, 02 May 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/506075-Not-so-quiet-death-the-US-orders-to-kill-the-Iranian-Navys-Dena-and-its-crew

In the early morning of March 4, Sri Lanka time, the Islamic Republic of Iran Ship (IRIS) Dena was attacked by the US submarine USS Charlotte with two torpedoes.

The first destroyed the Dena’s propeller shaft and stopped her dead in the water. Her position was at coordinates 6.0073 degrees North, 79.8654 degrees East: that was nine nautical miles (nm) outside Sri Lanka’s territorial waters; 19 nm (35 km) west of the harbour of Galle, a port on the southwestern coast of the island.

At the 30-knot speed the Dena had been moving, she was 18 minutes from the safety of Sri Lankan territory. Immobilized, however, the Dena captain, Abuzar Zarri, gave the crew the order to assemble on the aft deck in full visibility of the Charlotte, and prepare to abandon ship. As the crew mustered, a second torpedo was fired by the Charlotte to sink the Dena and kill the crew.

The torpedo warhead explosion broke the keel; the Dena sank in less than five minutes.

Of the crew’s 180-man complement, 32 were rescued from the water by the Sri Lankan coast guard, including Zarri and the first officer; 87 bodies were recovered; 61 were lost. Altogether, 148 were killed.

On the Charlotte, submerged at a distance from the Dena of less than 10 nm (18 km), there was an interval of approximately ninety minutes between the first fire order and the second, the kill order. A close-range film of the second torpedo strike, recorded by the Charlotte, was released to the press by the Pentagon.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/DkUkQ5pzSlc?wmode=opaque
Four men participated in the chain of command through which these two strike orders were requested; decided; transmitted; executed.

They are CommanderThomas Futch (lead, left), commander of the USS Charlotte; CaptainJeffrey Fassbinder (second left), chief of the Submarine Squadron 7 of the US Pacific Fleet; AdmiralStephen Koehler (centre), Commander of the US Pacific Fleet; and Peter Hegseth (right), the US Secretary of War (Defense).

Hegseth announced in a Pentagon briefing on March 4 what he wanted the public to believe he had done. “Yesterday in the Indian Ocean, and we’ll play it on the screen there, an American submarine sunk [sic] an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters. Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo, quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II.”

Hegseth was deceiving. He knew two torpedoes had been fired; it was the second which sank theDena. He knew theDenadid not “[think] it was safe in international waters”. This was because US intelligence had been reporting to the Pentagon and the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet command that the Iranian Navy had been requesting safe haven for theDenaand its two escorts,IRIS LavanandIRIS Bushehr, in Sri Lanka, then India, for more than seven days before the March 4 attack.

Admiral Koehler knew because he had met with Sri Lankan officials in Colombo between February 19 and 21 to deter them from taking Iran’s side. “We stand with Sri Lanka in facing shared security challenges — from maritime domain awareness to countering transnational threats”, the US Embassy announced. On March 4, the Sri Lankan newspaper Tamil Guardian editorialized: “Did Washington’s Sri Lanka visit precede a secret naval strike? Questions grow after Iranian frigate sunk.”

In the new article just published in the Tehran Times, the evidence of the Dena attack has been summarized and the political implications weighed – for the US and for the governments of Sri Lanka and India, which joined the US in the preliminaries, before the attack of March 4, and in the aftermath.

Click to read: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/525994/IRIS-Dena-sinking-Survivors-testimony-diplomatic-delays-and

Comment: From the link:

What happened off the coast of Sri Lanka, Iranian officials argue, was not simply an attack on a warship. It was the deliberate destruction of a disarmed and disabled vessel and its evacuating crew prevented from reaching safety — and a test of who in the region chose neutrality, and who did not.

War on the high seas have strict rules. There are rules of engagement and even in French, there is the rule of being hors de combat (out of combat).

In the case of the Dena being torpedoed twice and her crew of 148 lost, there seems to be a Naval case to be made for when there are Orders to Kill Survivors at Sea:

The deliberate killing of survivors at sea represents one of the most clearly defined war crimes in international humanitarian law, with prohibitions stretching back more than a century and codified in multiple treaties and military manuals. The fundamental principle underlying these prohibitions is that individuals who are hors de combat � out of combat due to shipwreck, wounds, surrender, or other incapacitation � must not be made the object of attack. This principle applies universally in armed conflicts and represents a core tenet of the laws of war that balances military necessity with humanitarian considerations.

The codes of war come with Article 60 (and 71) that state:

Article 60 of the Lieber Code states unequivocally that “it is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter.” Article 71 went further, prescribing the death penalty for anyone who “intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy.” These principles were subsequently incorporated into the 1899 Hague Regulations, which prohibited killing or wounding “an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.”

Does Peter Hegseth need to answer for this, and what of the Commander, Admiral and Captain?

May 7, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war