In an interview with Hawzah News Agency in Mashhad, Hojatoleslam Mohsen Asadi Movahed, a member of the Assembly of Persian-speaking Seminary Students at Khorasan Seminary and an international law student at Razavi Islamic Sciences University, provided a detailed legal analysis of what he termed a "full-fledged human tragedy."
'104 martyrs, 20 missing'
Asadi Movahed highlighted the staggering human toll of the attack, noting that of the 134 crew members aboard the Dena, 104 were martyred. He added that 20 bodies remain missing—a testament to the depth of the crime committed in the depths of the sea.
The scholar emphasized that the Dena was on a training mission at the time of the attack, with the majority of its crew consisting of young students and trainee officers at the beginning of their military service.
'Violation of freedom of navigation'
The international law researcher stated that the first principle violated in the incident was the "freedom of navigation" in international waters. He cited the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which guarantees all vessels—both commercial and military—the right to free and peaceful passage in international waters.
"An unprovoked attack on a military vessel in international waters during peacetime is a clear instance of aggression and a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits member states from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states," he asserted.
Asadi Movahed stressed that the Dena was present in international waters as a symbol of the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the assault constituted a direct attack on Iran's national sovereignty.
'Principle of distinction violated'
Addressing the humanitarian dimensions of the attack, the scholar pointed to the fundamental principle of distinction in international humanitarian law. He noted that even under the hypothetical assumption of an armed conflict, the US submarine's actions would be severely condemnable under the rules of naval warfare.
"The martyrdom of 104 out of 134 crew members demonstrates an attack with maximum destructive power that is incompatible with any logic of 'military necessity,'" he stated.
He emphasized that targeting a vessel whose crew consisted largely of trainees and educational personnel represents a clear violation of the foundational rules of international humanitarian law.
'No warning, no chance of survival'
Asadi Movahed further highlighted the violation of the principle of appropriate warning—a legal requirement under customary naval warfare practices for vessels not engaged in offensive operations.
"A submarine attack, by its covert nature, effectively eliminates any opportunity for reaction, surrender, or even emergency evacuation of the crew," he explained. "Sinking a training vessel without providing the crew any chance of rescue is a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of humanity."
He added that international humanitarian law emphasizes the preservation of human dignity even after death, noting that the failure to conduct search and rescue operations for the missing constitutes a violation of the attacking state's legal and moral obligations.
'Preemptive self-defense claim holds no merit'
The legal scholar also dismissed any potential justifications the United States might offer, such as the outdated concept of "preemptive self-defense."
"Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, self-defense is only permissible when an actual 'armed attack' has occurred," he stated. "The Dena had not fired any shots, and by the legal standard set in the Caroline case, there was no imminent and unavoidable threat posed by this training vessel to the attacking submarine."
Asadi Movahed concluded that the attack represents a serious challenge to the very foundations of international law and underscores the disregard of the American-Zionist axis for established legal norms.
Your Comment