The story so far:

On June 12, after India summoned U.S. Embassy representative Jason Meeks and lodged its “strong protest” against U.S. missile attacks on merchant vessels carrying Indian crew members, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar that violations of the American blockade and “illicit transport of Iranian oil” would not be tolerated. Recalling his discussion with Mr. Rubio, Mr. Jaishankar posted on X: “I reiterated India’s strong protest at the attacks by the U.S. Navy in the Gulf that killed three Indian mariners. Such lethal actions against commercial shipping are not justified.”

How many Indians are working on merchant vessels globally?

There are an estimated 3.5 lakh Indian seafarers manning ships across the world. The Indian government estimates that more than half of them are in active service, mostly in foreign-flagged ships.

This means one in every six seafarers serving on large merchant ships worldwide is Indian. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimates that some 20,000 seafarers of all nationalities are stranded on ships in the Persian Gulf region. The DG Shipping of India estimated at the start of the crisis that some 23,000 Indian seafarers are serving in the broader Gulf region in various capacities and facilities, with the UAE accounting for more than half.

What happened to the three vessels targeted by the U.S.?

On June 8, 10, and 11, the U.S. Navy fired precision munitions — Hellfire missiles — on merchant vessels Marivex, Settebello, and Jalveer. The three were tankers carrying Indian crew. While no one was hurt in the case of Marivex and Jalveer, three Indian seafarers — one chief engineer, one engine fitter, and one deck cadet — died onboard Settebello. While Marivex was attacked off the coast of Duqm, some 400 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz, the others were attacked off the coast of Shinas in Oman, which is closer to the strait.

Videos put out by the United States Central Command (Centcom) show the engine rooms of the ships being hit as well as the steering compartments. These attacks damaged the vessels above the waterline, so water didn’t rush in to sink them. But their ability to move and manoeuvre on their own was lost.

In its press releases, the U.S. Centcom has said the crew of Settebello and Marivex refused to comply with instructions and all of them violated the blockade by attempting to transport Iranian oil. Marivex attempted to sail to an Iranian port, it claimed.

While the Marivex crew is reported to have informed seafarers’ unions that their ship was at anchor while attacked, Settebello’s manager, IOS Marine FZE, a firm registered in Ajman, has flatly contradicted the U.S. The company has said Settebello was stationary for nearly 10 days in the region. It said the ship had no communication from the U.S. Navy and had no connection with Iranian oil or ports.

What sanctions were imposed on these ships?

Marivex was sanctioned by the U.S. in December 2025 for Iranian connections. Settebello had been flagged by a U.S. non-profit advocacy organisation, United Against Nuclear Iran, for alleged Iranian links. U.S. sanctions are not binding on any other country besides the U.S., although the U.S. Treasury Department’s sanctions make it difficult for the companies associated with the concerned ship to access the financial system and other business transactions. Quite often, sanctioned ships lose insurance cover, without which ports will not accept calls by the ships, and charterers will refuse to handle cargo through them.

There have been reports of non-compliance of these ships with some maritime regulations. Typically, such violations, not uncommon in merchant shipping, relate to safety aspects. And ships are typically given time to remedy them before the consequences of losing insurance cover can kick in.

Does the foreign-flag status of the vessels limit India’s options?

They all carried foreign flags of convenience (FOCs) but had deep Indian links, including in ownership and management. In merchant shipping, ships are often registered in little-known nations with no infrastructure to rigorously supervise and monitor ships. Popular FOCs include Panama, Marshall Islands, Liberia, and Guinea-Bissau. Such FOCs are also popular among ships transporting Russian and Iranian oil.

Yes, technically, an Indian flagged ship will provide legal sanction for possible action. The U.S., during the Iran-Iraq war, ordered many ships to change their flag to the U.S. so it could legally escort the ships in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. But the Indian Navy has acted against Houthis and Somalian pirates to help Indian seafarers onboard foreign-flagged ships.

Further, Marivex and Jalveer were often serving Indian ports, facilitating India’s enormous oil needs. Soon after the ceasefire was announced in early April, Marivex headed out of the Strait of Hormuz to call on Mangalore. Jalveer is a bitumen carrier — a special type of ship that carries tar-bitumen, popular in laying Indian roads.

Were other options available for the U.S.?

In the last week of April, the U.S. Navy boarded Tifani, a sanctioned very large crude carrier in the Indian Ocean past Sri Lanka. The ship had an Indian crew.

This week, U.K. forces boarded Smyrtos on the English Channel for its alleged links to drug cartels, Russian oil, and so on.

Merchant ships are defenceless. Typically, merchant ships have wireless channels open for communication with nearby vessels and any instructions from governments and Navies and Coast Guard vessels are immediately complied with. Seafarers are trained to protect crew, cargo and the ship.

Somalian pirates coming in small craft and carrying firearms could easily board and seize massive oil tankers. The only evasive action ships have against attackers is a high-pressure water jet they can direct at them.

What can India do to protect Indian seafarers in the region?

India did launch Operation Sankalp to protect merchant ships against Houthi attacks. Indian Navy and Coast Guard intervened to protect four merchant ships in 2024. India did take action against Somalian pirates. But the belligerents in the Persian Gulf are the U.S. and Iran. Therefore, India’s options are rather limited.

Does international maritime law adequately protect civilian crews?

The nodal agency for regulating global shipping is the IMO, a United Nations agency. Though the IMO has the means to regulate the technical, commercial, environmental and safety aspects of global shipping through consensus and rulemaking, it has often fallen short in protecting ships and seafarers. Quite often, national governments take unilateral action, and typical of an UN agency, the IMO has been unable to act to prevent or take remedial action.

The law governing the oceans is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Its acts and mandates are extensive and are an outcome of decades of negotiations and consensus-building. UNCLOS is thorough and considers various situations, including transits across straits such as the Hormuz. But many nations have not signed on to it. The U.S. refused to sign it on the grounds that UNCLOS considers the deep seabed as the commons. Iran has signed the convention but has not ratified it. There really is no overarching body for enforcement. Things are often left to the good sense of governments.