The ongoing conflict between US-Israel and Iran has brought naval power and escalation dynamics into sharp focus, with the theatre of tensions widening beyond West Asia.
The sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena which killed over 100 in the Indian Ocean Region on 4 March, just days after the vessel took part in India’s International Fleet Review and the multinational naval exercise Milan, has sparked debate in strategic and political circles amid conflicting claims over the circumstances of the strike.
To understand the broader strategic context and its implications for India, The New Indian Express spoke to Cmde (Dr.) Srikant Kesnur, VSM (Retd), former Director of the Maritime Warfare Centre. During his naval career, he commanded the anti-submarine frigate INS Vindhyagiri and the amphibious transport dock INS Jalashwa and also served as Defence Adviser at the Indian High Commission in Kenya.
The sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena in the IOR has sparked debate in India, particularly because the vessel had participated in events hosted by the Indian Navy and was heading home from them. How do you view the incident?
The debate in India has largely been driven by misunderstanding of maritime law and operational realities at sea. The Iranian frigate had already left India on 25 February, while the incident occurred on 4 March, nearly a week later. As I understand it was struck roughly 40 nautical miles off the coast of Galle.
Under international law, territorial waters extend up to 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Since the strike occurred far beyond that limit, it took place in international waters. If two countries are engaged in hostilities, international law (Law of Armed Conflict in this case) allows them to target each other’s military assets in international waters. Therefore, from the standpoint of the law governing armed conflict at sea, such an action would be considered legally permissible. The moral or political aspect of such a strike, however, is a different matter.
Some commentators argue that the United States has not formally declared war on Iran because Congress has not authorised it. Does that affect the legality of such military action?
Formal declarations of war have become increasingly rare in modern conflicts. Many countries initiate military operations without formally declaring war because doing so may involve additional legal and diplomatic consequences.Once hostilities begin between two states, the law of armed conflict becomes applicable.
This framework regulates how military operations are conducted, including what constitutes a legitimate target and how force may be used. From that perspective, the legality of attacking an enemy warship during hostilities does not depend on whether a formal declaration of war has been issued. The broader legal debate about whether the conflict itself conforms to international law is separate from the operational rules governing combat.
The incident occurred relatively close to the Indian Ocean Region, where India has been expanding its maritime engagement. Does such an event affect India’s influence in the region?
I do not believe it has any significant impact on India’s regional standing. India’s maritime engagement in the Indian Ocean has largely focused on cooperative security and capacity-building with partner countries. The Indian Navy sees itself as a “preferred security partner” and a “first responder” in the region. This role primarily involves addressing non-traditional maritime threats such as piracy, terrorism, trafficking, illegal fishing and humanitarian crises. India works with several Indian Ocean countries through coordinated or joint patrols, training initiatives and information-sharing arrangements. These partnerships are not directly affected by a conflict between two external powers. India’s maritime influence will continue to evolve gradually as its economic and naval capabilities grow.
Questions have also been raised about the Indian Navy’s search-and-rescue efforts after the strike. How are such operations normally coordinated at sea?
The Indian Navy did respond by deploying a P-8I maritime patrol aircraft and dispatching warships to assist in the situation. India has also allowed the Iranian frigate IRIS Lavan to dock in Kochi, with members of the crew being accommodated at naval facilities. More broadly, maritime search-and-rescue (SAR) operations function through an internationally coordinated framework. Different parts of the ocean fall under designated search-and-rescue regions and the country responsible for that region coordinates the response. In this case, the area fell under Sri Lanka’s maritime search-and-rescue jurisdiction.
Other countries can assist, but such assistance is normally provided in coordination with the designated authority, since unilateral deployment of assets could raise issues related to sovereignty.
It is also important to understand the scale of the maritime environment. Oceans are vast and ships take time to reach a location. Even when assets are dispatched quickly, distances at sea mean that response times can appear longer than people expect.
Some analysts say the submarine strike is unusual because it occurred outside the main theatre of conflict. Do you see this as unprecedented?
I would be cautious about calling it unprecedented. Naval conflicts are not always confined to a single geographical theatre, and planners routinely prepare for the possibility that hostilities may spread across wider maritime spaces. Naval planning often accounts for contingencies beyond the immediate battlefield space. Submarines remain among the most lethal platforms in naval warfare because of their stealth and striking capability. There have been three instances after the Second World War and before this, where submarines have sunk surface vessels. During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Indian Navy lost the frigate INS Khukri to a Pakistani sub attack. In the Falklands War, a British sub torpedoed the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano. More recently, the South Korean corvette Cheonan was sunk in a midget sub strike attributed to North Korea.
Is an attacking submarine required to rescue survivors after carrying out such a strike?
The rules governing this issue are often misunderstood. Earlier conventions, particularly during the Second World War, sometimes involved submarines rescuing crews from torpedoed merchant vessels when it was safe to do so.
However, modern naval warfighting recognises that submarines are very important assets that rely heavily on stealth. Surfacing to conduct rescue operations could expose the submarine to detection and attack, potentially endangering its crew.
As a result, rescue may be possible only if it can be carried out without compromising the safety of the attacking platform, which makes it impractical. In some cases, the submarine may instead report the incident and location, so that other vessels can conduct search-and-rescue operations.
What lessons should India draw from this episode, particularly for the Indian Navy?
The core lesson is that a country’s global influence grows when the maritime domain receives the attention and investment it deserves.
The recent episode has underscored the continuing relevance of submarines in modern naval warfare, particularly nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs).
These platforms combine stealth, endurance and high speed, allowing them to operate across vast maritime spaces and pose a serious threat to surface vessels.
India currently operates nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), but it does not yet have operational SSNs. The government has approved plans to develop them, which is an important step. More importantly, there is a pressing need to strengthen comprehensive national power, given that developing such advanced capabilities requires sustained investment, a strong industrial base and long-term national commitment.