I have been thinking a good deal about the sinking of the Iranian warship by a US submarine.
First, I served in the submarine force, and I have some sense of what those sailors must have experienced as they carried out the attack.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the attack says troubling things about who we are now as a nation state as we wage war seemingly everywhere, and in particular in this intensifying war with Iran.
During the early morning hours of March 4, 2026, the USS CHARLOTTE (SSN-766) sank the Islamic Republic of Iran Ship (IRIS) DENA approximately 40 nautical miles south of Sri Lanka.
The attack occurred as the DENA was returning from the International Fleet Review and exercise MILAN 2026 in Indian waters (February 16th-19th).
(The US Navy had been invited to participate, but declined – likely given the planned start of the US/Israel attack on February 28th).
The DENA had approximately 180 personnel onboard. Reporting indicated 87 were killed; 32 were rescued; and 61 were missing – though bodies had later been reported washing up on Sri Lankan beaches.
(Normal complement for the DENA would have been 140 – the others were said to have been Iranian naval cadets).
There’s much we don’t know – or likely will ever know. Submarine operations are classified, and in particular with this administration there will be likely far less than what might be made public.
First, we don’t know if the CHARLOTTE had been trailing the DENA after it left Indian waters, or if the CHARLOTTE had been given an interception course to find and sink the DENA.
We don’t know what the CHARLOTTE’s Commanding Officer’s (CO) understanding was of the DENA and her operations.
The DENA was configured for light coastal patrol duty with several naval guns, a close-in weapons system, a few torpedoes for Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) and a surface search radar; ASW search was limited to that done by helicopters deployed from the ship.
But, by any measure, this was not a ship that would present much risk to a modern submarine or larger surface combatant (particularly one armed with surface-to-surface missiles).
It can be assumed that the DENA’s CO was informed about the attack on Iran and was under orders to return as soon as possible.
With its light armaments and distance from Iran (2,300 nautical miles to the nearest Iranian port), perhaps the DENA didn’t consider itself at risk as it presented none to anyone else.
The DENA stood no chance in the coming attack.
Having served on an SSN, including a battle stations assignment in the control room during practice attacks, I can offer what my experience (even though 50 years ago) suggests as to how the crew would have acted.
Onboard the CHARLOTTE, the CO would have informed the crew of his orders sometime before the attack – timing is uncertain, as I mentioned we don’t know if she was trailing or on an intercept course.
The crew’s reaction was likely a mixture of fear (going to war) and excitement (getting to do for real all the things they had been trained to do). There would have been some tough talk to mask fear about what was about to happen.
Battle stations (where everyone has an assigned watch location through the boat) would have been called. Those in the control room on the fire control systems and those in the torpedo room would have gotten busy with their assigned duties in preparation for the attack.
That the DENA was likely on a fixed course and speed made the firing solution an easy exercise. And I assume it was was not using its helicopters for ASW searches (if they were actually onboard).
The ship made the attack at periscope depth – that is significant.
I believe the photos taken were from a Type 18 periscope. It’s been too long and I’ve forgotten how to interpret the range-scale lines in the scope’s image.
But given the DENA almost filled the optical image from the periscope and it was not “hull down” (i.e., over the curvature of the Earth for the periscope’s height above the water surface), indicates this attack was made at about 4,000 yards.
That’s ridiculously close and proves (at least to me) that the DENA was no threat to anyone.
Even in the morning twilight/light, if the DENA was a threat to the CHARLOTTE a submerged attack would have made from a greater distance.
The CHARLOTTE launched two Mk 48 torpedoes – I’m not sure why. One would have been sufficient to sink a much larger vessel.
The Mk 48 is designed to explode under the ship and break the keel by water hammer. That’s clear from one of the images that shows the hull lifting out of the water above the point of detonation. I should note that ships don’t float for long after the ship’s keel is broken
On the CHARLOTTE, the crew would have hear the muzzle doors open and the air noise of the torpedo being impulsed out the tube.
In the control room, there would have been monitoring of the wire-guided torpedo’s course to the target. Without getting into the specifics of the torpedo’s speed and engagement steps, it’s safe to assume no more than a very few minutes before detonation.
That sound would be heard and felt throughout the CHARLOTTE – followed by the sounds of the DENA breaking up.
A few of the younger sailors may have cheered at the detonation until they realized what their older shipmates already had – they had just killed a bunch of Iranian sailors.
At some point afterward, battle stations would have been secured and the boat returned to normal cruising watches. People would have gone off quietly and thought about what they had done.
The CO would have maintained a quiet steely presence not revealing his thoughts. But I assume later when laying in his rack in his stateroom he would have thought about the murder he had committed that day. (I can’t say for sure, but I know the type of men I served under and that’s how they would have reacted).
What to make of it requires looking at the attack from the perspectives of legality and morality.
Legality is established by established formal laws and rules.
Morality, by the principles to ensure good (or justice) prevail over evil (or injustice). And in the ambiguity or war, whether an action serves a higher purpose.
As to it legality, the law of naval warfare suggests the attack was a legal action, given the US and Iran were engaged in hostile actions.
Was the sinking moral? A more difficult question.
The CO of the CHARLOTTE was under orders to attack and sink the DENA. We have no way of knowing what was his understanding of the DENA’s mission and operations.
So the morality question centers on whether the CO and his crew believed the killing of those Iranian sailors served a higher purpose (e.g. protect another ship from potential attack).
The location suggests that was not a realistic possibility at that time. But, there is no way of knowing that until they speak on their return – unless they are ordered to reveal nothing.
What happened next, however, is the even more troubling part of this attack.
Provisions of the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 includes the requirement that efforts must be made to rescue any survivors of a hostile action – failure to do so is a war crime.
However, no one would be expected to attempt the rescue of survivors in an ongoing battle if it exposed oneself to destruction by other hostile forces. That would seem not to be the case here.
There has been some legal discussion about the limitations of such a requirement for submarines.
Practically, the CHARLOTTE had no way to rescue survivors from the water or have the facilities to provide medical care and secure them onboard as prisoners of war during a four to five day voyage to probably Diego Garcia.
However, submarines would be expected, again subject to not putting one’s own ship at hazard, to inform rescuers of the location of the survivors.
The DENA apparently sent out a distress call, which was picked up by the Sri Lankan Coast Guard.
Whether the CHARLOTTE or US Navy did is unknown. That is the key issue in terms of the morality of this attack. Failure to do so would constitute a possible war crime.
But who would bear that responsibility?
I believe it starts with the Secretary of Defense, the self styled Secretary of War, with his sneering cry for maximum lethality and contempt for what he labels as stupid rules of engagement.
First a note on his disdain for rules of engagement.
Among their several purposes, rules of engagement provide military units the legal restrictions under which they can use deadly force. By mocking rules of engagement, he is placing service members at risk of being charge with war crimes – so much for “support the troops”.
That the Navy ordered the CHARLOTTE to sink the DENA should have included a review by a Judge Advocate General (JAG) lawyer to address potential war crimes (specifically the failure to rescue survivors or alert other assets that could undertake the rescue).
Someone in the chain of command that knew the attack was coming should have ensured the Sri Lankan Coast Guard was informed – and not assumed the DENA could have made a distress call.
Failing to do would strongly indicate the US did not care whether a distress call was made and the rescue of survivors was undertaken. (Subject to what I wrote above – we have no way of knowing either way).
Add to that is the Type 18 includes the ability to record videos of what is seen through the periscope. Whether that video was sent in real time or after the attack, I believe it quickly made its way to Hegseth, who I believe would have been ecstatic to see the ship being sunk.
I make no apologies. I consider Hegseth a dangerous dry-drunk christian nationalist obsessed with violence intended to bring on the End Times. He is a disgrace to the men and women who serve in the military, and to the nation at large.
I note that the Religious Freedom Foundation has received many complaints about unit commanders across the services telling their troops that the war will bring on the Rapture. Also Hegseth himself has held ‘voluntary’ prayer meetings in the center court of the Pentagon.
Add to that, by many accounts, flag officers who have pushed back against any of the current DOD policies have been reassigned and replaced by those more in line with Hegseth’s (and Trump’s) thinking.
This is a dangerous situation – particularly as the war in Iran escalates, with more deaths, more destruction, and the risks of the use of nuclear weapons.
And that may be the most significant thing about the sinking of the DENA. It is a singular event that reflects the morality of the U.S. at this time.
(And while it’s easy to say it’s just Trump, one should not forget that the Biden administration cheered and supported Israel with its genocide in Gaza – or that the Democrats primary objection to the attack on Iran was they were not asked to vote their support – which based on comments from many Senators, would have occurred).
The sinking of the DENA shows that the U.S. will kill anyone, anywhere.
And what of the CO and crew of the CHARLOTTE?
They followed the orders they were given and they sunk the DENA and killed many of its crew – strangers all who wore a different uniform; were of a different race; and had a different faith.
I believe when they return to port in Hawaii and they learn more from family and friends and various news channels, they will understand something that is apparent to me.
They committed murder – if not legally, but certainly morally. The attack served no military purpose except to kill. They will have to live with their moral injury.
But if there is to be guilt – the greater share must be owned by the entire country and what we have allowed ourselves to become in the last three decades. We send young men and women into harms way in morally ambiguous conflicts for reasons that have all to do with other nations or the enrichment of the privileged few, rather than the security of our own people.
