It wasn't like the US was going to let them get back to join the war

As you said, unless they surrendered the vessel to a port to wait it out, they were doomed as they got closer to Iran.

Victim? 20 other large vessels were already sunk. I’m sure they were aware that they are a target.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2026, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

.....this one was smart enough to develop "engine troubles"

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/5/sri-lanka-evacuates-crew-of-second-iranian-vessel-after-us-sunk-iris-dena

Send two of its small navy to a war excercise? Then they stayed an extra 2 days after the conflict started. Weird stuff.

Plus they must have known their only real useful weapons were going to be missiles & drones, their navy & air force were just going to be targets

The object of combat isn't to make it fair for the other side

ymmv

The Dena participated in Milan 2026, which included live fire exercises:

I guess they support religo-nazis and killing protestors.

And there are a growing number of accusations that those who correct false information are "supporting" the war.

Standard US inventory is publicly available... it's 3500-4000 units.

400 were used in the opening days of the war and Tomahawks are only used BEFORE air supremacy is achieved.

The Iranian propaganda is thick right now

He seems to disagree with you and Whiskey Pete Hegseth that everything is fine. But hey, he's probably getting a check from some mullah!

(On edit: The "I told you so" fun for me in the coming weeks, months, years as this thing drags on and on with the folks who didn't learn a thing from Iraq and other entanglements is going to be off the charts. )

I don't know... all I'm saying is all this social media hype about how the Iranians are "devastating" it's neighbors is silly.

I'm so shocked!

Once it left port and headed back to the warzone is was a danger to the US carrier group in the Arabian Sea.
I don't see how letting it kill a bunch of US sailors and then being sunk is a better outcome, YMMV

The other Iranian vessel stayed in Sri Lanka with "engine problems" and is fine.

Smarter move then letting it get with in striking distance of the US carrier group operating in the Arabian Sea.
She had 4 sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles with 200 kilo warheads and 300k range.

Do the supporters of this ginned up war want wwiii to break out? Because that is a distinct possibility here. Let that sink in.

Very dangerous for a sub to let a frigate know it's there, the Iranian warship carried homing torpedos with a 15k range.

How does WWIII break out?
Zero major powers are going to step in to help Iran.
Actually the longer they try to block the Straights of Hormuz, the more likely other powers will step in to help open the straights.

Key Destinations and Percentages (via Strait of Hormuz):
Asia (Total): ~82%
China: ~37.7% (Also, ~90% of Iran's specific exports)
India: ~14.7%
Other Asia: ~13.9%
South Korea: ~12.0%
Other (Europe/USA): Remaining ~18

India relies on the Middle East for about 60% of its oil imports.
More than 90% of Japan's crude oil imports come from the Middle East.

After the fog of war clears, this will be revealed to be a serious war crime, I have no doubt.

Any real news org saying that or just some nobody troll on X?

Would be required to be unarmed. They may not have been at combat readiness but they would still have their standard weapons load.

Also not even Iran has said the ship was unarmed; I believe they know more about their ships than "sources"

Kill ‘em all and let god sort em out amirite?

She has neither lifeboats or room/provisions for 32 prisoners.

The Iranian frigate got off a SOS and had life rafts.

Trump starting this war to cover up Epstein is despicable. But out folks are now engaged. This ship was sailing to the conflict zone. With hostilities underway, that ship was a legit target. It should have remained in port.

The Admiral commanding the carrier group would be derelict in his/her duty if they allowed a enemy combatant with anti-ship assets to get anywhere near the carrier group.
No doubt the attached attack sub was sent that way to make sure it didn't.

If the Iranian captain had any brains he would have developed some "engine trouble" like the other Iranian warship did, instead he got most of his crew killed for nothing.

A bank robber shoots a guard for daring to pull a gun on him
All's fair

Any harm you do is attached to it
This war is illegal

Their meeting was happenstance and our carrier didn't fucking hunt it down

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2026, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The carrier most likely detached her attack sub to go stop it getting closer.
The Iranian warship had anti-ship cruise missiles with 300k range, letting it get closer would be stupid.
If the Iranian warship didn't want to take part in the war she could have just stayed where she was.

You know who didn't get sunk?
The other Iranian warship that stayed in Sri Lanka

Hegseth's lawyer
https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-2675597881/

And the ship wasn't unarmed that's BS

And I don't even know why they mention international waters like thats some kind of safe zone for enemy ships, news flash it's not

The narrative presents it as if international waters is some kind of safe zone; however attacking the ship in another country's territorial waters would be a violation of sovereignty.

We should not be in this war therefore we should not be in a position to sink sovereign nation ships

For it to be a war crime it'd have to be a declared and marked hospital ship or have surrendered and then be sunk etc

Wars started for dubious reasons do not mean all the combat that takes place during that war are war crimes

Leavitt was failing in her attempt to turn water into orange juice as she rationalized Operation Forget Epstein.

"In a social media post, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said there was no way that the Iranian ship could have been perceived as any kind of military threat."

� 'I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition,' he wrote. 'It was defenseless... The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship�s presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind.' "

A bit like targeting a girls school?

First, Milan 2026 had live fire exercises so there was no was no protocol that ships could not carry ammunition. Second, the US participated in the exercises, both the harbor portion and the at sea portion - P-8's practiced ASW.

See my prior post at #13.

It literally just came from practicing how to kill enemies, so it could do that better if there's a war. Constant improvement, that's what militaries do all day.

There's now a war and it's an enemy ship headed to a war zone. Further, that ships country shoots at anything that seemingly floats these days, so I have no idea why everyone is adding "international waters" to this, like it's some shocker. That's a lot of bad choices.

It was literally the part in the movie where Eastwood tells everyone who doesn't want to get shot better leave... and reminds everyone that you'd best be armed (permanently) if you do wicked stuff... They headed right in.

Also, we don't tell the enemy stuff like "We're here. Stand and deliver you cur!", anymore. You just shoot them.

I suppose if Iran were to start firing warning drones that deliberately missed oil tankers, military bases and Amazon data centers, we should consider warning shots.

Can’t have it both ways bro

Or a act of war?
Can’t have it both ways bro

We are the aggressors here, do you understand that?

One Naval warship attacking another Naval warship during a war is hardly "terror"
It's called combat and if the Iranian ship wanted to avoid it it could have stayed in port like the other Iranian vessel did

We broke into their house and set off bombs, it’s a crime. They fight back, it’s self defense. Sinking their ship was yet another crime. Sorry, that’s just how most normal people see this, it’s why there’s substantial outrage over this.

And by normal people you mean a few posters here and maybe code pink?

Less people seem outraged by it in this thread and understand how naval warfare works then otherwise.
ymmv
Considering the alternative was to let it get within missile range of a US carrier and maybe kill a bunch of American sailors and then still get sunk I don't see how this is the worst outcome

Basically there were 2 choices and all the "illegal war!" "Burglar!" etc cries are too late once hostilities begin.

At that point the US Admiral in command of the USN carrier group could either:

A. Let a hostile warship in missile range and risk potentially losing ships and many sailors & then sinking the enemy vessel or

B. Sink it while it is still out of range.

There really isn't a choice C., if the Iranian warship didn't want to fight it would have stayed in Sri Lanka like the other one did.

Any Admiral who picked A. would be rightfully court marshaled for dereliction of duty in force protection.

What about INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES do you not get??

Iran was not a belligerent, not a combatant, not a declared war enemy.....

It was, in fact, a sovereign nation as Iraq was when we ILLEGALLY ATTACKED her.

They don’t get to keep their warships heading towards the front where they are actively shooting at ships. We sink them before they sink anyone. That’s how it’s always worked.

And it is all nations ships, even their own.
The tanker Skylight was hit by the Iranians, even though it is under sanction for being part of the shadow fleet which smuggles Iranian oil.

Attack first. Then accuse the victim state of being in the wrong.

On the 26th Feb, it had requested permission to enter a Sir Lankan port from the 9th to 13th of March, as had the IRINS Bushehr (a naval auxiliary, so without significant armament) and another ship*. The ships were already very close to the Sri Lankan national maritime zone. The Sri Lankan government thus saw it as an unusual request, and so didn't immediately say yes or no. Then the Dena was sunk early on the 4th, still close to Sri Lanka (19 nautical miles from the port of Galle). The Bushehr docked on the 4th at Trincomalee (not the main commercial port of Colombo, where the Sri Lankans didn't want it).

Link to tweet

Iranian war vessel at sea, potential danger to carrier group is all the sub would have known

so no, I think it's highly likely it knew it was not sailing towards your sacred carrier group, or into the zone of conflict. Plus in this day and age, I also suspect that US intel would have had the info about its movement for the past few days, and Navy top brass would have taken them into account when giving orders to sink it.

If one were demanding "unconditional surrender", one would be saying "it's a potential danger to our carrier group", and saying "sink the bastard, it's Iranian".

Since it sounds like the Sri Lanka had not yet given permission for it do dock how do you know what direction it was heading?

If it's war, it's illegal - Congress has not authorised it. "I was only obeying orders" is what the Democrats reminded the military they can't use as an excuse when the orders are illegal.

without any discussion beforehand.

It requires the president to consult with Congress where hostilities are thought "imminent". Trump clearly did not; he built up forces in the area, did no consultation, and pretended to be interested in negotiation. Then he launched the attack without warning, when nothing had changed (and no, the idea that Israel decided to attack and therefore the USA was forced to attack at the same time doesn't cut it). This is clearly against the Wars Power Resolution. You can't use it as an excuse for an attack 2000 miles away from the fighting.

You want to regard the killing of dozens of people as a form of Grandmother's Footsteps - if a ship twitches, 2000 miles away, then blast away. Are you inspired by Squid Game?

Uranium," "Mobile Bio-warfare Labs," "Hidden WMDs," and "Saddam Won't Let Overseers In"?

ALL EFFING LIES, EVERY ONE, AND THEIR LIARS: BUSH; RICE; POWELL; WOLFOWITZ.

And yet---AND YET---there are actually those who take THIS unutterably corrupt and criminal Republican Administration's words as somehow being related to the truth and reality, when in fact they are not in the same UNIVERSE.

Well, as was said by a US Major ( not Gen. Westmoreland) back in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Mark it: Cuba is next. Gotta bring back the good old criminal days of Batista. Think of the Trump Resorts and Golf Courses!