Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 144K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
IMG_5498.jpeg

Strike on Iranian Frigate Triggers Debate Over Law, Morality and Congressional Authority | Military.com

www.military.com www.military.com

“… The submarine departed without attempting a rescue or alerting anyone. Congress never authorized the war. The ship had just participated in naval exercises alongside American personnel. And the ship, some argue, may have been unarmed.

…
Sibal produced no proof for that assertion. India's own official record complicates the claims even further.

The Press Information Bureau, India's government press office, published a detailed account of MILAN 2026's sea phase confirming that "live firings as part of surface gun shoots, as well as anti-air firings, were also undertaken" by participating vessels. If a blanket ammunition ban governed the exercise, it was not reflected in the account India itself provided.

Whether the Dena specifically had her weapons systems loaded when she departed Visakhapatnam on Feb. 25 remains unconfirmed by any official source on either side.

… Under the law of naval warfare, the question may be beside the point. A warship's status as a lawful military target derives from its flag and its function in a conflict, not the state of her magazines at a given moment. Under the same laws, even unarmed merchant vessels flying an enemy flag can be sunk during armed conflict, provided certain conditions are met, including visit and search procedures in some cases.

The Dena was an Iranian Navy war vessel transiting the Indian Ocean while her country was in open conflict with the United States. As such, a warship flying an enemy flag is a valid military target, but whether the United States was lawfully at war is a question the strike off Sri Lanka has forced into open debate.

Wes Bryant, a former Air Force special operations targeting expert and former chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon, called the strike illegal.

"Was that warship actively posing a threat or participating in hostilities?" Bryant said. "You cannot say that this warship was an imminent threat to anyone. By targeting it, is the Trump administration saying that the imminent threat is all of Iran's government and military? If so, that's an incredibly dangerous example of military overreach."…”
Click to expand...
“…
The Navy left its premier maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare platform to fly drills alongside Iranian naval assets, including the Dena, before the war began. Whether that was coincidence, or whether the P-8A was building a targeting picture it would later share with the submarine, is a question the Pentagon has not answered. No official source has alleged a direct connection.

No legal framework clearly prohibits using intelligence gathered during a multilateral exercise to later target a participating ship. There is also no modern precedent for it. If data gathered during the exercise or after contributed to the strike, it would not necessarily constitute a violation of international law.

It would, however, represent something without parallel in the history of multinational naval cooperation, almost certainly executed without India's knowledge or consent. For a country that spent years building MILAN into a cornerstone of its maritime diplomacy, that possibility alone may prove more damaging to U.S.-India relations than the sinking itself.…”
 
nycfan said:
“…
The Navy left its premier maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare platform to fly drills alongside Iranian naval assets, including the Dena, before the war began. Whether that was coincidence, or whether the P-8A was building a targeting picture it would later share with the submarine, is a question the Pentagon has not answered. No official source has alleged a direct connection.

No legal framework clearly prohibits using intelligence gathered during a multilateral exercise to later target a participating ship. There is also no modern precedent for it. If data gathered during the exercise or after contributed to the strike, it would not necessarily constitute a violation of international law.

It would, however, represent something without parallel in the history of multinational naval cooperation, almost certainly executed without India's knowledge or consent. For a country that spent years building MILAN into a cornerstone of its maritime diplomacy, that possibility alone may prove more damaging to U.S.-India relations than the sinking itself.…”
Click to expand...
IMG_5500.jpeg
IMG_5501.jpeg
 
Callatoroy said:
Click to expand...
Another in a long line of right-wing hawks writing these wishcasting pieces in which they project their own hopes, dreams, and motives onto Trump. Bret Stephens has been doing a good job of this in the NYT too. "I can think of a reason why the Iran war is a good idea, so let me just go ahead and assume that's why Trump is doing it, despite all evidence to the contrary."
 
nycfan said:
IMG_5498.jpeg

Strike on Iranian Frigate Triggers Debate Over Law, Morality and Congressional Authority | Military.com

www.military.com www.military.com

“… The submarine departed without attempting a rescue or alerting anyone. Congress never authorized the war. The ship had just participated in naval exercises alongside American personnel. And the ship, some argue, may have been unarmed.

…
Sibal produced no proof for that assertion. India's own official record complicates the claims even further.

The Press Information Bureau, India's government press office, published a detailed account of MILAN 2026's sea phase confirming that "live firings as part of surface gun shoots, as well as anti-air firings, were also undertaken" by participating vessels. If a blanket ammunition ban governed the exercise, it was not reflected in the account India itself provided.

Whether the Dena specifically had her weapons systems loaded when she departed Visakhapatnam on Feb. 25 remains unconfirmed by any official source on either side.

… Under the law of naval warfare, the question may be beside the point. A warship's status as a lawful military target derives from its flag and its function in a conflict, not the state of her magazines at a given moment. Under the same laws, even unarmed merchant vessels flying an enemy flag can be sunk during armed conflict, provided certain conditions are met, including visit and search procedures in some cases.

The Dena was an Iranian Navy war vessel transiting the Indian Ocean while her country was in open conflict with the United States. As such, a warship flying an enemy flag is a valid military target, but whether the United States was lawfully at war is a question the strike off Sri Lanka has forced into open debate.

Wes Bryant, a former Air Force special operations targeting expert and former chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon, called the strike illegal.

"Was that warship actively posing a threat or participating in hostilities?" Bryant said. "You cannot say that this warship was an imminent threat to anyone. By targeting it, is the Trump administration saying that the imminent threat is all of Iran's government and military? If so, that's an incredibly dangerous example of military overreach."…”
Click to expand...
This is a political loser. Few moderates are wrapping themselves in knots about sinking an Iranian worship or not rescuing Iranian sailors. Plenty of people are cheering it on.

The focus should be on whether we should be in this war at all. That's where Trump loses support from democrats, moderates and even portions of his own base.
 
heelinhell said:
Is it too early to declare the United States a rogue state ?
Click to expand...
Not sure what that would accomplish, but this is clear — for as long as Republicans have power in DC, foreign nations would be fucking idiots to trust us to do anything legally or within the boundaries of international norms. I think it’s more accurate to say we’re a mafia state.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
This is a political loser. Few moderates are wrapping themselves in knots about sinking an Iranian worship or not rescuing Iranian sailors. Plenty of people are cheering it on.

The focus should be on whether we should be in this war at all. That's where Trump loses support from democrats, moderates and even portions of his own base.
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone personally cheering on war crimes. Who do you keep company with?
 
rodoheel said:
Another in a long line of right-wing hawks writing these wishcasting pieces in which they project their own hopes, dreams, and motives onto Trump. Bret Stephens has been doing a good job of this in the NYT too. "I can think of a reason why the Iran war is a good idea, so let me just go ahead and assume that's why Trump is doing it, despite all evidence to the contrary."
Click to expand...
Lmao, right? Yeah, we've really got China quaking in their boots as we exhaust our munitions stores, demonstrate our systems vulnerabilities, get our overseas bases blown up, exhaust our Treasury, demoralize our populace, cause three quarters of our Middle Eastern allies to decide to divest from us, and tank the petrodollar. I'm sure Xi hasn't slept in days.
 
Let me get this straight: the war is actually about MAKING IRAN GREAT AGAIN ? That's why we are losing blood and treasure? Democrats should be able to attack on this one.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
This is a political loser. Few moderates are wrapping themselves in knots about sinking an Iranian worship or not rescuing Iranian sailors. Plenty of people are cheering it on.

The focus should be on whether we should be in this war at all. That's where Trump loses support from democrats, moderates and even portions of his own base.
Click to expand...
I can understand the sentiment and perspective but definitely disagree with it. I don't think it's a political loser at all, though I do 100% agree with you that the greater focus should be on whether we should be in this war at all (we shouldn't, obv). The reason that I don't think it's a political loser is because even though they've retreated meekly into the background as MAGA overtook their party, I think that there are still plenty of classical conservative non-MAGAs who respect the military and the rules based order. Sinking an unarmed vessel thousands of miles away from a combat zone and letting its sailors drown in direct and explicit violation of the Geneva Convention might get the MAGA base and the emotionally stunted folks like Pete Hegseth all torqued up but I think that most rational and reasonable people on either side of the ideological spectrum can recognize that it's grotesque.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
This is a political loser. Few moderates are wrapping themselves in knots about sinking an Iranian worship or not rescuing Iranian sailors. Plenty of people are cheering it on.

The focus should be on whether we should be in this war at all. That's where Trump loses support from democrats, moderates and even portions of his own base.
Click to expand...
Who the hell cares about the politics of it?
 
CFordUNC said:
I can understand the sentiment and perspective but definitely disagree with it. I don't think it's a political loser at all, though I do 100% agree with you that the greater focus should be on whether we should be in this war at all (we shouldn't, obv). The reason that I don't think it's a political loser is because even though they've retreated meekly into the background as MAGA overtook their party, I think that there are still plenty of classical conservative non-MAGAs who respect the military and the rules based order. Sinking an unarmed vessel thousands of miles away from a combat zone and letting its sailors drown in direct and explicit violation of the Geneva Convention might get the MAGA base and the emotionally stunted folks like Pete Hegseth all torqued up but I think that most rational and reasonable people on either side of the ideological spectrum can recognize that it's grotesque.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'm pretty liberal and a pacifist for the most part but I'm also one of the people that think if we're in a war, we shouldn't be holding back attacking military targets.

That's how wars go on forever. Better for both sides to go hard and make it short.

I get the counter argument that this is basically a mini Pearl harbor sneak attack and we would be incensed if this happened to us but I suspect most voters aren't going to be quite that empathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top