By Lasanda Kurukulasuriya
A Sri Lankan court has ordered that the bodies of 84 Iranian sailors killed on March 4 – when a US submarine torpedoed and sank an Iranian frigate in international waters off Sri Lanka – be handed over to officials of the Iran embassy for repatriation. Court proceedings, that presumably followed a request from Tehran that the bodies be returned, resulted in the Galle magistrate ordering the Director of Galle National Hospital to release the bodies, that were in cold storage facilities. TASS reported on Tuesday (10) citing Iran’s state TV and radio broadcaster, that “84 out of the 104 dead IRIS Dena sailors have already been identified and will soon return to their homeland thanks to efforts of the foreign ministry and the Sri Lankan government’s cooperation.”
This is a victory for rule of law that has significance beyond Sri Lanka’s borders owing to preceding events, revealing that the (seemingly all-powerful) US had other plans.
Reuters reported March 7 that according to a leaked internal State Department cable, the US was pressing Sri Lanka NOT to repatriate the IRIS Dena’s 32 survivors (rescued in a joint Sri Lanka Navy/Airforce operation) or 208 crew members of a second Iranian ship, IRIS Booshehr, currently in Sri Lankan custody. Both were in the Indian Ocean on return from India’s ‘Milan 2026’ military exercise in the Bay of Bengal, among ships and aircraft from some 74 participating countries at the event held 15-25 Feb at Visakhapatnam.
Reuters reported: “The internal State Department cable, which was dated March 6 and has not been previously reported, said Jayne Howell, the charge d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Colombo, had emphasized to Sri Lanka’s government that neither the Booshehr crew nor the 32 Dena survivors should be repatriated to Iran. It said “Sri Lankan authorities should minimize Iranian attempts to use the detainees for propaganda.”
According to Reuters, the cable said Howell “also told the Israeli ambassador to India and Sri Lanka that there was no plan to repatriate the crew to Iran. … The State Department cable said the second vessel, the Booshehr, will remain in Sri Lankan custody for the duration of the conflict.”
This messaging gives the impression of the US representative having ‘instructed’ Sri Lanka (“should not be repatriated,” “should minimize Iranian attempts to use the detainees for propaganda” etc.) – hardly in line with expected protocol in discussion regarding another sovereign state? Reuters reported that the cable said the charge d’affairs told the Israeli ambassador “there was no plan to repatriate the crew to Iran.” What plan did this refer to? Was Sri Lanka consulted?
Meanwhile the US Indo Pacific Command (USPACOM) in a ‘X’ post on March 08 made two assertions:
-Law of Armed Conflict authorized the use of force to target and destroy valid military targets.
-US forces planned for and SL provided life-saving support to survivors in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict
It would be best left to experts on international law (and maritime law) to comment on whether a strike, 2000 miles away from the theatre of conflict, in INTERNATIONAL waters, on a warship that was not on a military mission, could be justified in terms of the UN Charter and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Extending the theatre of conflict from its regional origins to the Indian Ocean, itself has significant implications.
The second USPACOM statement says that US forces ‘planned for’ Sri Lanka to provide life-saving support to the survivors. US forces ‘planned’ the response provided by Sri Lanka? Was this entire saga scripted in advance, then?
The Government of Sri Lanka would need to take note of the US exceptionalism revealed in these communications. Is Sri Lanka seen as a mere pawn in its ‘great games?’ Is it being used in a US game of ‘good-cop bad-cop’ where regional players are moved to achieve undisclosed military objectives of big powers?
US U-turn
The day after Reuters’ report appeared, a local TV station reported that it sought a clarification from the US State Department. Its news website hirunews.lk on March 08 carried the response received.
“The United States, of course, respects and recognises Sri Lanka’s sovereignty in the handling of this situation,” the response said. “The ultimate disposition of the IRIS Bushehr and its crew, as well as the Iranian sailors rescued at sea, is a decision for Sri Lanka to make pursuant to its domestic law and international legal obligations.”
Interestingly, the response does not deny the contents of the Reuters report.
It went on to say:
“We are pursuing dialogue with Sri Lanka and our utmost goal is to mitigate the threat that Iran poses to the United States and our partners.”
Sri Lanka faces no threat from Iran. The alleged ‘threat that Iran poses to the United States’ is open to question. It was the US that unilaterally started launching attacks on the Islamic Republic. Arguments that the war started because there was no breakthrough in the nuclear talks in Geneva, have been rubbished by analysts who say it was in fact because a breakthrough was imminent that the US quit talks. It is not clear what the stated ‘dialogue’ with Sri Lanka is about.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake at a late night press briefing on March 5 at the presidential secretariat, spelt out Sri Lanka’s stance to a small group. At the live-broadcast event, the nation heard him assert, “We are not partial to any state of subject to any state. We are an independent sovereign state. We have a responsibility to our people, to our land. We are protecting our neutral status.” He went on to explain the humanitarian basis for Sri Lanka’s response with regard to the IRIS Dena, where 32 survivors were rescued and 84 bodies recovered. Regarding the second ship IRIS Booshehr, he said the decision to take it into custody was taken after discussions (‘on our side’) on Sri Lanka’s obligations in terms of international conventions and agreements, and after consulting with the ship’s captain and the Iran embassy.
Indian role
According to reports that followed, three Iranian ships had sought permission to dock in Sri Lanka since 26 Feb – that is, immediately after ‘Milan 2026’ came to a close. One of them, the IRIS Lavan had meanwhile docked at the Indian port of Kochi on March 04. Though it was not known at the time, it now turns out that all three ships had also sought to dock in India, around the same time. “The Iranian side had requested permission on 28 February for three ships in the region to dock at our ports. This was accorded on 1 March,” Jaishankar* told parliament on Monday. “Iris Lavan actually docked on 4 March in Kochi. The crew is currently in Indian naval facilities. We believe that this was the right thing to do.” (BBC March 9)
Indian PM Narendra Modi faced sharp criticism from the opposition Congress party for his government’s silence on the episode. “Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Thursday (March 5, 2026) attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying the West Asia conflict has reached India’s backyard but he has not spoken, and while the country needed a steady hand at the wheel, it has a “compromised PM who has surrendered our strategic autonomy” (The Hindu, March 5)
There are still some grey areas in this story with some aspects unexplained. But it may be said, Sri Lanka has up to now acted in accordance with international humanitarian law. According to this law, which applies to the survivors of the Dena, the wounded could be repatriated at their request (defensepost.com March 8). The US will have to stick to the stance it made public, that it respects Sri Lanka’s sovereignty in the handling of this situation and that the decision regarding crew members is ‘for Sri Lanka to make.’
Though the requirement of Islam for the dead to be buried within 24 hours has not been met, the bodies will return to Iran, for burial with dignity. Thanks to a ruling by a Sri Lankan magistrate. A small victory, for a small nation.
*S. Jaishankar, Indian Minister of External Affairs
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
