US Sinks Iranian Warship in International Waters

Attack raises questions about legality of ongoing conflict with Iran

Published on Mar. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Navy has sunk an Iranian warship in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from the main theater of the conflict. The attack, carried out by a U.S. submarine, took place in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka. While military law experts say the Iranian ship would have been a lawful target had the U.S. officially declared war, the lack of such a declaration has created a legal gray area around the incident.

Why it matters

The sinking of the Iranian ship in international waters highlights the ongoing tensions and lack of clear legal framework governing the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, which has involved more than a dozen countries. It underscores calls for Congress to formally authorize the use of military force against Iran, which the administration has so far avoided.

The details

The U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner fired Tomahawk missiles to sink the Iranian warship. The attack took place on March 1, 2026, thousands of miles from the main theater of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran. Military law experts say the Iranian ship would have been a lawful target had the U.S. officially declared war, but the lack of such a declaration creates legal ambiguity around the incident.

  • The attack took place on March 1, 2026.
  • The House of Representatives voted against a war powers resolution on Thursday, while similar legislation failed in the Senate on Wednesday.

The players

USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116)

An Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer that fired the Tomahawk missiles to sink the Iranian warship.

Abbas Araghchi

The Iranian Foreign Minister who called the attack an 'atrocity' and warned the U.S. will 'come to bitterly regret the precedent it has set'.

Rachel VanLandingham

A retired Lt. Col. and former judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, who said the attack 'underscores why Congress should have approved this in the first place'.

Brian Finucane

A former attorney-adviser at the State Department from 2011 to 2021, who said the submarine attack would have been lawful if the conflict was authorized by Congress.

Elbridge Colby

The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, who refused to say the U.S. is 'at war' with Iran, instead calling it a 'military action'.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The U.S. will come to bitterly regret precedent it has set.”

— Abbas Araghchi, Iranian Foreign Minister (wbal.com)

“When you're going to have such global implications — that's one of the reasons the founding fathers said Congress gets to decide wars of choice.”

— Rachel VanLandingham, Retired Lt. Col. and former judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force (wbal.com)

“The fundamental legal problems under both U.S. and international law of the submarine engagement relate to the underlying use of force in this war against Iran.”

— Brian Finucane, Former attorney-adviser at the State Department (wbal.com)

“I think we're in a military action at this point. I will leave to Congress and lawyers from the administration, et cetera, to determine.”

— Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (wbal.com)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This incident highlights the ongoing legal ambiguity and lack of clear Congressional authorization for the U.S. conflict with Iran, which has expanded beyond the Persian Gulf region and now involves the sinking of an Iranian warship in international waters. It underscores the need for the administration and Congress to clarify the legal framework governing this military action.