607
'Cowardly and Despicable': Hegseth Condemned for Sinking of ‘Defenseless’ Iranian Ship
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
607 points (98.1% liked)
World News
55008 readers
3209 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was not an illegal order. And it's also entirely possible the captain didn't know the status of the ships ammunition supply, or lack there of. Not that it changes anything from a legal standpoint.
But, it being a legal target doesn't change the fact that it was cowardly. Both are true.
How was it a legal target? We are not at war as idiot orange says.
You are in a defacto war. Despite whatever orange man says. The ship was inside international waters. It belongs to the nation you are attacking. It was a military ship. It is a legal target.
What's not a legal target are the civilian boats they shot down outside of Venezuela.
So usa’s ships are legal targets for all world countries?
Attacking a military ship is generally not a war crime (as defined by international law such as the Geneva treaties, Rome Statute etc...). It is an act of war (same as invasion or bombardment of another country), and is likely to see retaliation by the attacked country.
Aggression (i.e. unprovoked acts of war) is against the Charter of the United Nations, which also includes the International Court of Justice as a dispute resolution mechanism. It is up to the United Nations Security Council (at which the US has a veto) to authorise enforcement of ICJ rulings.
If a nation is acting to protect another nation facing aggression from the US, it would be legal for the attack US military ships. The reason why they wouldn't would more be that it would likely bring counter-retaliation from the US.
If you want to start a war with the US, sure.
Rules for thee not for me
Legal by whose standards? The international law’s? No one enforces that. Unless it’s to benefit the richest. Most international law is followed basically on the honor system.
By the US’s standards, everything is legal because the president has no limitations because our government will never pass those limitations on a president. If it was illegal, no one is can or will enforce it.
Who cares about “legal”?
Even the Japanese technically declared war before they attacked pearl harbor. That the US gov was too disorganized to get the message to pearl harbor is not their fault.
Actually the orange idiot keeps saying you are. It was Mike Johnson going the SMO route
Only Congress can declare war. Until then it's a conflict.
A war is a war whether the aggressor decides to officially call it that or not
War - Noun -fighting, using soldiers and weapons, between two or more countries, or two or more groups inside a country - Cambridge Dictionary
It's just as much a war as Putin's war in Ukraine is. The fact that Congress hasn't gotten round to declaring it yet is moot
Oh I know, and you know, but there are legal definitions and issues with what he's doing. Not that any of that matters regardless to the asshats in charge.
He also decided to not help the survivors.
It's a submarine. What do you expect them to do? They are not equipped to handle POW's
It is believed Sri Lanka was notified which were at the scene quickly after it sank.
They surface, they deploy lifeboats. They treat the wounded and hand them off to locals. Just like submarines have been doing for a very long time. As was pointed out, even the Nazis didn't abandon survivors. Sri Lanka may have been their quickly, but quickly in nautical terms is hours at best. The sub could have hung around and aided the survivors at least that long.
You are right about nazi subs helping sailors. They would carry them on top of the sub, while towing the rest from a lifeboat. And then they stoped doing that. Because they were fired upon by allied planes while they were towing the lifeboat. So they cut the line and submerged.
That was the last time a submarine tried to help sailors in WW2.
Submarine countermeasures have only increased since then.
Another reason for the submarine to not surface is because they don't want to let anyone else know which submarine is where.
I'm not gonna say sinking an unarmed warship returning from an exercise is cool. But it's not a war crime if it's in international waters, And it's also not a war crime for a submarine to remained submerged. They are simply not expected to conduct rescue operations.
Sure.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/article-18/commentary/2017
If you actually bothered to read what you linked. You would see this paragraph
And also
I did read it.
The action toke place half an ocean away from the combat theatre. There were no enemy naval nor aerial units around. There was no reasonable risk for the American sub.
But the captain decided not to help the survivors.
He is a war criminal and should be put on trial. But it won’t happen.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The US have committed more than their fair share of war crimes. But this spcific incident isn't one of them.
You say you read it, but it would then seem you purposefully ignored this part
You can look back and say "oh, they never sent a jet, there was no danger". But you're doing that with the textbook in hand. You are sitting several days in the future with far more information available to you than at the time of the incident.
A submarine, and I honestly can't believe i have to say this more than 10 times by now. Is generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. As far as the submarine captain goes. What do you want him, personally, to do, that also does not put his submarine or his crew in potential danger.
So do we really think Iran had sub killing capabilities in that area so far from home? It does say determined in good faith. You could argue that the captain's superiors may know something he doesn't, but cna you argue in good faith that they would withhold information about a threat to his sub in the area? Good faith would mean just claiming there might have been doesn't count.
Absolutely this.
So why is it a legal target. As pointed out, no state of war exists. So the boat wasn't a legal target. But if we hand wave that away, not picking up the survivors is clearly against international law. And I can even hand wave the part about orders being legal, but I still want the names out there, I want the public to know that this captain left those men to die against every tradition of the navy and international laws/rules/guidelines. Public pressure can help ensure the next Captain stands up against such orders.
The entire strikes are illegal as the United States is not in a state of war with Iran.
Besides, "I was just following orders" has never and will never be accepted as a justification.
It might be illegal under US law. I wouldn't know. I'm not a US lawyer. But what I do know is that it's not a war crime. And it doesn't break any "international law".
The international body that is supposed to look into these things would be the UN security counsel. At which both US and Russia are permanent members and both have veto powers. So good luck getting anything done there
There was a precedent in Nuremberg you should look into
They knew it was unarmed it was leaving an event that involved unarmed ships, an event the US backed out of and then had a sub attack a ship they knew to be unarmed.
Seizure would be arguably legal, sinking it is not.
I understand you feel strongly about what happened. But that is not going to change that it was a legal target in war.
There are lots of things that are legal, but still cowardly and shitty to do.
There's no law that says you can't rip off a giant fart outside a restaurants outdoor serving area. It would be legal. But incredibly shitty.
An unarmed boat is not a warship as per international law. They fly flags that state they are unarmed as this one was.
Quit equivocating.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don't actually think countries can just put up an "unarmed flag" and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I'm genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn't carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they're unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an "unarmed flag". Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it's unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around...
It's a military target, it isn't a warship. When deployed unarmed to naval exhibitions they are deployed as auxillary, it's the same as training ships.
Because it was boarded and inspected to take part in a fleet week of sorts, yes.
You can when it's beyond combat zones and flying flags signaling peaceful intention and being unarmed. There's a proportionality issue when it comes to striking military targets and moreover there's an obligation to rescue crew.
It wasn't anywhere near Iran unless you are somehow under the impression sri lanka is adjacent to Iran. And Ukraine tends to abide by normal military conventions so yes if they knew it to be unarmed they would likely seize the ship and not sink it.
Iran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#/media/File:Iran_(orthographic_projection).svg
Sri lanka:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#/media/File:Sri_Lanka_(orthographic_projection).svg
Location of sinking : https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/3188/live/10450900-17e7-11f1-b048-c9424b2cf5fd.png.webp
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn't always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within "combat zone" or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn't the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW's
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don't need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
They've given fair warning to literally every ship they've sunk. Laugh all you want but that's just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.
You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that's made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.
Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It's an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we're not even legally at war we're involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.
They had a strike group nearby, try again.
They're absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.
Yes they absolutely do, you're talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that's ignoring the overstock of seie suits.
You're contradicting yourself. You can't say they don't have X and then say what of they run out of X.
Seriously quit equivocating dude.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual "lifeboat" that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it's submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn't relevant.
Submarines were 'literally', not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
That's not what I found laughable.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn't because they're so nice to give them a fair warning. It's to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It's PR.
You keep using words like "literally" and "equivocating" but doesn't seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn't a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to "take all possible measures" which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn't have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There's no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it's a you meeting factually wrong.
Duh.
It was on both accounts.
Neither is yours especially when you're wrong.
Yes they were, you're talking about the modem use not their original intention.
Again dena was not outside of Iran's waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they're not at all comparable.
Yes my point is they didn't choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It's the law but yes sure it's good pr and the right thing to do.
Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
It's a war crime and you're equivocating.
Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn't even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you're making excuses for the inexcusable.
There is, it's too rescue the crew because we aren't at war with them let alone total war.
Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it's gross.