Donald Trump accuses Iran of attacking Indian ships; Tehran rejects charge as ‘baseless’

Three Indian seafarers were killed on June 10, 2026, when the US Navy struck the MT Settebello — a commercial tanker carrying 24 Indian crew members — off th...

What Happened

Three Indian seafarers were killed on June 10, 2026, when the US Navy struck the MT Settebello — a commercial tanker carrying 24 Indian crew members — off the coast of Oman, accusing it of violating the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports.
Twenty-one of the 24 crew members of MT Settebello were rescued; three others were confirmed deceased.
In the same week, two additional vessels with predominantly Indian crews — MT Marivex (Palau-flagged) and MT Jalveer — were targeted by US forces, with the latter carrying 20 Indian crew members.
The US confirmed striking MT Marivex on June 8, stating the vessel had failed to comply with instructions from US forces and continued towards an Iranian port despite the blockade.
The Ministry of External Affairs summoned the US Chargé d'Affaires, Jason Meeks, to lodge a formal protest over the attacks on commercial vessels off the Oman coast.
Iran's Foreign Ministry rejected US claims attributing the attacks to Iran, calling the accusations "baseless," and separately criticised the US strikes on merchant vessels with Indian crew, describing such actions as threats to "global peace and security."

Static Topic Bridges

The 2026 US Naval Blockade of Iran

The United States established a naval blockade of Iranian ports beginning April 13, 2026, as part of the broader US-Israel military campaign against Iran launched on February 28, 2026. The campaign targeted Iran's nuclear, ballistic missile, and military infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps initially mined the Strait of Hormuz and attacked merchant vessels, before the US began enforcement operations to reopen transit while simultaneously blockading Iranian-bound commercial traffic.

The blockade prohibits all commercial vessels from entering Iranian ports, regardless of flag state or cargo type.
US forces board, warn, disable, or strike vessels found to be violating the blockade, treating such vessels as engaged in "illicit transport of Iranian oil."
The blockade has reduced crude oil tanker traffic through Hormuz by approximately 95% and LNG carriers by 99% compared to pre-conflict levels.
Approximately 3,000 vessels transited the Strait monthly before the conflict; this figure has collapsed since February 2026.
The legal basis for unilateral naval blockades in international waters is contested under UNCLOS and the UN Charter.

Connection to this news: Indian-crewed vessels were struck while traversing international waters near the Strait of Hormuz; the US justified the strikes under blockade enforcement, while India's position is that such lethal action against commercial shipping is unjustified under international law.

UNCLOS and the Right of Transit Passage

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982 and entering into force in 1994, establishes the right of "transit passage" through international straits — a non-suspendable right for all ships and aircraft to transit straits used for international navigation. The Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, qualifies as such a strait under UNCLOS Part III.

UNCLOS Article 38(1) states all ships enjoy the right of transit passage, which "shall not be impeded."
UNCLOS Article 44 prohibits coastal states from suspending transit passage for any reason.
Articles 37–44 collectively bar imposition of transit tolls or conditions of passage inconsistent with UNCLOS.
Iran has signed but never ratified UNCLOS, and disputes that transit passage represents customary international law — a position rejected by most international law scholars.
The Strait of Hormuz's shipping lanes fall entirely within the territorial seas of Iran and Oman, making the legal dispute over jurisdiction particularly complex.

Connection to this news: India's protest that "lethal actions against commercial shipping are not justified" aligns with UNCLOS's transit passage framework — the vessels attacked were exercising rights of navigation through an international strait, not engaged in acts of war.

Protection of Seafarers Under International Law

Indian seafarers constitute approximately 12% of the global maritime workforce — the world's single largest national cohort — making their protection a key dimension of India's maritime diplomacy. International law provides several frameworks for protecting seafarers.

The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), 2006 — often called the "Seafarers' Bill of Rights" — guarantees decent working conditions, medical care, and repatriation rights for seafarers globally.
Under UNCLOS, the flag state bears primary responsibility for the safety and welfare of crew aboard vessels flying its flag.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued guidelines under Resolution A.1044(27) urging states to protect seafarers during armed conflicts.
India's Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, governs the rights and safety of Indian seafarers serving aboard foreign-flagged vessels through labour exporting frameworks.
India's Anti-Maritime Piracy Act, 2022, empowers prosecution of maritime crimes against Indian nationals under Article 105 of UNCLOS.

Connection to this news: The deaths of Indian seafarers aboard MT Settebello triggered India's diplomatic protest under these frameworks — the vessels were commercial ships engaged in lawful navigation, not combatants, and their crews are entitled to protection as civilians under international humanitarian law.

Flag State Responsibility and Vessel Accountability

In maritime law, the concept of "flag state" determines which country has jurisdiction over a vessel. A ship's flag state is legally responsible for ensuring compliance with international maritime conventions, safety standards, and labour laws. The MT Settebello and MT Marivex were not Indian-flagged vessels, yet carried predominantly Indian crews — raising questions of diplomatic protection.

Diplomatic protection is the mechanism by which a state espouses the claims of its nationals against another state for internationally wrongful acts.
India can invoke diplomatic protection for its nationals injured by US Navy strikes regardless of the vessel's flag state.
The 1955 International Court of Justice case Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) established that nationality must be "genuine" for diplomatic protection to apply — Indian crew members unambiguously qualify.
The Palau-flagged MT Marivex and the MT Settebello (flag unreported) carry Indian crews under Indian seafarer manning agencies, creating layered jurisdictional responsibilities.

Connection to this news: India's summons of the US Chargé d'Affaires and Jaishankar's direct protest to Secretary Rubio are exercises of diplomatic protection on behalf of Indian nationals harmed by a foreign state's military action — a legitimate recourse under customary international law.

Key Facts & Data

MT Settebello was struck on approximately June 10, 2026; 3 Indian seafarers were killed, 21 rescued.
MT Marivex (Palau-flagged) was struck on June 8, 2026.
MT Jalveer carried 20 Indian crew members and was also targeted in the same week.
The US naval blockade of Iranian ports has been in effect since April 13, 2026.
Approximately 20% of global petroleum and 20% of LNG transits the Strait of Hormuz annually.
The WTO reported a 95% reduction in crude oil tanker traffic and a 99% reduction in LNG carrier traffic through Hormuz since the conflict began.
Indian seafarers constitute approximately 12% of the global maritime workforce — the largest national cohort.
India's Merchant Shipping Act was enacted in 1958; the Anti-Maritime Piracy Act in 2022.
UNCLOS was adopted in 1982 and entered into force in 1994; India ratified it in 1995.