India-US dispute after US missile strikes kill three Indian sailors in Gulf of Oman

After a US military strike killed three Indians on a commercial ship near the Strait of Hormuz, India fears that its concerns are becoming easy to overlook, says think tank researcher Rahul Jaybhay.

‘Like living in hell’: The Iran war leaves Indian seafarers dead and trapped at sea Submitted by Aatif Ammad on Mon, 06/29/2026 - 12:26 While families of those killed await justice and accountability, hundreds of other Indian seafarers remain stranded in the Strait of Hormuz, hoping only to return home alive Bhargavi Suresh and her two sons sit in front of the photograph of her dead husband, Patnala Suresh, at their home in Visakhapatnam, India, on 23 June 2026 (Aatif Ammad/MEE) Off Bhargavi Suresh, 36, from Visakhapatnam in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, spends hours sitting before a framed photograph of her husband, Patnala Suresh. She wipes the glass clean, kisses the picture, hugs it tightly and places it back on the table, only to reach for it again moments later. Looking at the photograph, she breaks down in tears. "Look at my husband. Isn't he handsome? Isn't he young?" she cries. "Come back. How can I live without you? How will I raise our children alone? They need you. I need you." Overwhelmed by grief, Bhargavi nearly faints before relatives help her recover. Moments later, she is clutching the photograph once again. Soon, her two sons, aged 13 and 10, sit beside her. Together, they stare silently at the image of their father, their “superhero”. For 14 years, Patnala Suresh served in the merchant navy. Most recently, he was working as chief engineer aboard the commercial oil tanker MT Settebello. To his sons, he was a man who braved storms and rough seas to keep global trade moving. "He was my children's superhero," Bhargavi says softly. "Everything they admired, they saw in him." Suresh was among three Indian crew members killed when the US military struck the MT Settebello in the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz on 10 June. American authorities later said the tanker had failed to comply with repeated instructions issued by US forces. Bhargavi rejects that justification. "My husband was not a soldier," she tells MEE. "They could have stopped or detained the ship if they wanted to. Why fire a missile at a vessel carrying civilians?" Calling the strike unjustified, she said the United States should be held accountable for what she described as a violation of international law. Volatile corridor India is the world's third-largest supplier of seafarers, with more than 300,000 Indians serving aboard merchant vessels, accounting for nearly 10-12 percent of the world's seafaring workforce. But the US-Israeli war on Iran has turned Gulf waters into a dangerous workplace. Since the start of the conflict on 28 February, more than 40 commercial vessels have been attacked and at least 14 non-Iranian and 44 Iranian maritime workers have been killed.  ‘My son was a civilian seafarer, not a navy officer. There was no reason to attack a ship carrying unarmed sailors. The US must answer for what happened and be held accountable’ - Aditya Sharma India has paid a heavy toll: at least seven Indian seafarers have been killed, while at least 37 Indian-flagged vessels carrying more than 1,100 Indian sailors remain caught in one of the world's most volatile maritime corridors. Rajesh Sharma, 60, from Himachal Pradesh's Hamirpur district, still struggles to accept that his only son, Aditya Sharma, will never call home again. Aditya, a 23-year-old deck cadet on probation, was among the Indian sailors killed in the attack on the MT Settebello. As relatives and neighbours gather at his home to offer condolences, Sharma fights back tears while remembering his son. "He never started his day without calling us," Sharma tells MEE. "He would call twice every day, once before work and once before going to sleep. He was our only child. We were so proud of him. He was one in a million." Breaking down, Rajesh shouts: "Oh my son, why did you leave us? How will we live with this grief?" Sharma says the attack has shattered his family and demands accountability. US attack kills three Indian sailors in Gulf of Oman Read More » "They destroyed families in a matter of seconds," he says. "My son was a civilian seafarer, not a navy officer. There was no reason to attack a ship carrying unarmed sailors. The US must answer for what happened and be held accountable." He also says India's response has not matched the gravity of the tragedy. "Our prime minister should have spoken about this personally," Sharma says. "He should have addressed the families who lost their loved ones and spoken out against the attack himself. A diplomatic protest alone is not enough. We expected stronger intervention from the Indian government, but it did not come." Following the strike, India registered a diplomatic protest with Washington, but did not summon the US ambassador, while it had summoned Iran's envoy for the death of four Indian seafarers killed in previous attacks that were attributed by the US to Iran, which Tehran denied. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly raised concerns about the safety of seafarers during his meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Evian, France, in mid-June, families of the deceased sailors point out that there was no separate public statement, formal press release or social media post from the prime minister's office specifically condemning the attacks that killed Indian seafarers. Hazardous conditions  Since the ceasefire deal signed on 17 June between the US and Iran, many vessels crossed the Strait of Hormuz. However, the agreement is more precarious than ever, as both sides traded fire near the Strait of Hormuz over the past days and accused each other of violating its terms. Washington blamed Tehran for attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran insisted that foreign ships had breached its navigation rules and accused the US of provoking the escalation. This brought the traffic under halt again. As vessels remain stranded, maritime experts warn that commercial ships are designed to sail, not to remain anchored for weeks or months - a situation that exposes both the vessels and their crews to significant risks. Vessels are seen anchored in Bandar Abbas along the Strait of Hormuz in a picture obtained on 18 June 2026 (AFP/Isna) Manoj Yadav, general secretary of the Forward Seamen's Union of India (FSUI), told MEE prolonged anchoring was causing ships to accumulate rust, barnacles, algae and jellyfish, while many were struggling to obtain critical spare parts, potentially affecting their ability to leave the region when tensions ease. "Ships are meant to move, not remain idle for months," Yadav said. He added that extended inactivity can also create hazardous conditions onboard, including the build-up of harmful gases in confined spaces, posing risks to crew health and safety. The human toll is already evident. Nishanth Uirthanathan, a 35-year-old Indian seafarer, father of two and second officer aboard the MT Celestial tanker, died on 11 June after falling seriously ill while the vessel was docked at Duqm Port in Oman. ‘A few days before he died, he told his wife that conditions on the ship were not good’ - Prashant Uirthanathan His brother, Prashant Uirthanathan, said Nishanth suffered from fever, vomiting and extreme fatigue for nearly a month. He added that prolonged anchoring caused by the regional conflict had led to deteriorating living conditions onboard, including poor sanitation and food quality. "A few days before he died, he told his wife that conditions on the ship were not good," Prashant told MEE. The family also alleged delays in medical treatment by the shipping company. "We were poor before Nishanth became a seafarer. He helped lift our family out of poverty," Prashant said. "If the conflict had not delayed the voyage, he would have returned home months ago. We believe he would still be alive today." The dangers of prolonged confinement at sea are well documented. The International Maritime Organisation reported in 2025 that since 1996, around 350 seafarers and maritime workers have died in incidents involving oxygen-deficient or toxic atmospheres in confined spaces aboard ships. Since 2022 alone, 43 such accidents have claimed about 70 lives. Inadequate compensation Indian seafarer unions say that while Indian seafarers have paid the highest price in the Gulf crisis, the government's response has fallen short of expectations in terms of compensation. India's director general of shipping, Shyam Jagannathan, said 10 lakhs of rupees ($10,500) had been released to the families of the deceased sailors through the Seafarers' Welfare Fund Society and that efforts were under way to secure additional assistance. However, Yadav stressed that the money came from a welfare fund, not directly from the government. "These were not accidental deaths. Civilian seafarers were killed in military attacks," he said. ‘There was an expectation that the government would come out strongly in support of these families. Many feel that has not happened’ - Manoj Yadav, Forward Seamen's Union of India His union, FSUI, is demanding at least one crore rupees ($105,000) in compensation for each family and a government job for the next of kin. The union has also petitioned the United Nations, seeking $5m in compensation for the families of those killed. "There was an expectation that the government would come out strongly in support of these families," Yadav told MEE. "Many feel that has not happened." As uncertainty over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz continues, hundreds of Indian seafarers remain trapped. The recent attacks have left many living with fear, anxiety, and psychological trauma. According to the Indian government, the control room of the Directorate General of Shipping has handled more than 12,331 phone calls and 27,515 emails since the crisis began. The ministry has also facilitated the repatriation of 3,537 Indian seafarers from the Gulf region. Yadav said the FSUI has received countless calls and messages from Indian seafarers pleading to be evacuated. Bhumesh, an Indian seafarer who survived the 1 March attack on the tanker Skylight that killed one crew member after being rescued by the Omani military, said the memories continue to haunt him. "When the ship was attacked, the only faces I could see were those of my parents," he told MEE. "I still live with that trauma. The images never leave me. Seafarers hardly sleep because of fear. Living at sea has become like living in hell." War on Iran Delhi News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0

Three Indian mariners on a merchant ship off the coast of Iran and Oman are killed by the US Navy, but the US did not think it politically appropriate to express regret at this loss of life. Whatever the circumstances that led to this killing, some words of regret from the US would have been normal. After all, the merchant ship was unarmed and was not posing any military threat to the US warship. The US used military force against it, knowing that civilian casualties could result. Even if there was no deliberate intention to inflict casualties, but "collateral damage" occurred, why not express regret? Is there no moral obligation to condone the death of civilians in a military action, particularly against a non-military target? What is worse in this case is that India is a comprehensive global strategic partner of the US. Both countries have cooperated for many years to promote maritime security in the Indian Ocean. The two countries regularly hold elaborate naval exercises. Both are members of the Quad, along with Japan and Australia, which has, amongst its several tasks, maritime security in the Indo-Pacific area. Maritime domain awareness is another major area of cooperation between the two countries. A US officer is stationed in our Information Fusion Centre- Indian Ocean region (IFC-IOR) in Gurugram, which is a maritime security and intelligence sharing hub established by the Indian Navy. It actively collaborates with international partners to monitor shipping traffic and combat threats across the region. India maintains a reciprocal liaison officer in the US Central Command HQs in Florida as part of deepening maritime, counterterrorism, and undersea domain awareness cooperation with the US. The Gulf area falls under the US Central Command and not the US Indo-Pacific Command. It is, therefore, surprising that with such levels of institutional cooperation, the likelihood of a very large number of Indian crews on commercial vessels being physically endangered in an area which is the biggest source of supply of oil and gas not only to India but to Asia in general was not discussed, and some protocols to protect their lives were not devised. Iran's step to control the flow of commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, however objectionable or legally questionable it may be, was in response to the US/Israeli war on Iran. Before the attack, the passage through the Strait was free, even when relations between Iran and the US had been hostile, and Iran had been subject to draconian sanctions by the US. The US violated the UN Charter in attacking Iran. The US policy of oil and other sanctions on Iran and imposing them on third countries if they disregard these sanctions has no basis in international law. The US may have political reasons to sanction Iran because of its regional policies or its nuclear programme, but that does not mean that the US is acting in accordance with international law or the UN Charter. The US is exercising its power unilaterally because it has the muscle to do so. Accordingly, the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the prevention of Iran from exporting oil constituted unilateral decisions by the US. Commercial shipping would have no legal obligation to adhere to the blockade, though prudence would demand a careful assessment of the physical risks of violating it, given the deployment of US naval forces in the area. If individual ships, for whatever reason, felt that they could run the risk of passing through the Strait of Hormuz, they would not be acting illegally -- they would simply be risk-taking in defying US orders. If the commercial vessels were shutting off their transponders, etc., to breach the blockade, the question arises as to who gave the US the legal authority to act against them. As it happens, the US has not formally declared war against Iran. On top of it, under the US Constitution, the power to declare war lies with Congress and Trump's military action against Iran without Congressional approval is an issue of contention in the US itself. In this background, the US Navy firing on commercial shipping in international waters would be all the more legally questionable. India's own initial reaction to the killing of our three mariners on MT Settebelo was much too circumspect. True, the vessel was not under the Indian flag, and it knowingly circumvented the US blockade, but because three Indian nationals were killed by the US Navy, this necessitated a strong reaction from us. Instead, we seemed to want to give an escape clause to the US by referring to sanctions, OFAC and the US blockade in our initial comments. We eventually condemned the attack on June 10, but without saying who was responsible. The US Navy was not named. With public anger mounting, the US C'dA was summoned the second time after the US Navy struck MT Jalveer, which also carried Indian crew members (20) but without causing any casualties. This time, we lodged a strong protest against the continuing attacks by US naval forces on commercial vessels carrying Indian sailors in the Gulf of Oman, which, we recalled, had already resulted in the tragic and avoidable loss of three Indian lives. The MEA once again conveyed its deep concern over the use of lethal and deadly force against civilian shipping, adding that "such actions are unacceptable and undermine the safety, security and stability of international maritime commerce in a sensitive region at a difficult time". The US C'dA was requested to convey India's strong concerns to its authorities and to ensure that US forces operating in the region took all necessary measures to prevent the loss of civilian life. The government obviously felt that, with the US ambassador out of the country, summoning the C'dA was not enough and that our concerns had to be communicated at the political level. External Affairs Minister Jaishankar spoke to US Secretary of State Rubio and reiterated India's strong protest at the attacks by the US Navy in the Gulf that killed three Indian mariners, stating that such lethal actions against commercial shipping were not justified. Rather surprisingly, Rubio's read-out of the exchange with Jaishankar was unusually harsh and peremptory. He said that he stressed to EAM that all commercial vessels should immediately comply with orders from US forces, which seek to uphold peace and security in the Strait. He underscored that violations of the US blockade and the illicit transport of Iranian oil will not be tolerated. Rubio implicitly not only justified the killing of three Indian mariners under the circumstances but also warned that this could happen again, as the US will not tolerate the violation of its unilaterally imposed blockade. There is not even a pro forma expression of regret at the killing of nationals of a friendly country. A wiser diplomatic approach would have dictated some balancing of a tough message asserting the fundamentals of the US position with the palliative of regret. But Rubio preferred to snub us. As for the US upholding peace and security in the Strait, one can argue that, whatever the sins of Iran, it is the US that has disturbed peace and security in the Strait by its initial attacks on Iran. The irony of Rubio's message to India is that two days after his unyielding message, Trump announced the lifting of the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following a preliminary agreement with Iran. Rubio would have been aware of this imminent initial breakthrough, and yet he wrong-footed himself by phrasing his response to Jaishankar's oral demarche in such insensitive and unacceptable terms. In the circumstances, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was right in raising the issue of the safety of seafarers in his G7 statement, with Trump listening. He raised the issue more directly with Trump in their bilateral meeting, reminding the US president of the safety of lakhs of Indian seafarers on commercial ships. Trump regrettably side-stepped the issue by vaguely referring to such eventualities. He too missed an opportunity to express some regret at the killing of Indian nationals by his forces by wrapping it in a re-statement of the basic position of the US on the blockade. He talked of protecting India but was indifferent to the protection of Indian seafarers. (Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.) Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The mortal remains of two Indian seafarers who lost their lives in a US attack on the merchant vessel MT Settebello off the Oman coast have been brought back to India, the Indian Embassy in Oman said on Wednesday.In a post on X, the Indian mission said that Aditya Sharma and Shivanand Chaurasiya, who were among the three Indian crew members killed in the attack, had been repatriated. The embassy did not provide any update on the repatriation of the third deceased seafarer, Patnala Suresh.The mortal remains of Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Shivanand Chaurasiya, who tragically lost their lives in the attack on MT Settebello, have been repatriated to India. Our heartfelt condolences remain with their families during this difficult time.@MEAIndia @SecretaryCPVOIA…— India in Oman (Embassy of India, Muscat) (@Indemb_Muscat) June 17, 2026The mission also expressed condolences to the families of the victims, saying its thoughts remain with them during this difficult time.Rescue Efforts ContinueThe development comes a day after 21 rescued Indian seafarers from the same Palau-flagged vessel were repatriated to India.MT Settebello was among three merchant ships with Indian crew members that came under US attack off the Oman coast last week. The attack on the vessel resulted in the deaths of three Indian seafarers, while other crew members were rescued.The incident has raised serious concerns about the safety of merchant shipping routes in the region, particularly for Indian seafarers working aboard international vessels.Diplomatic Pressure MountsFollowing the attacks, India lodged a strong protest with the United States. The Ministry of External Affairs summoned US Charge d'Affaires Jason Meeks twice within a week to convey its concerns over the incident.'You Are a Cold-Blooded Murderer': Kejriwal Accuses Donald Trump Over Deaths of Indian Seafarers, Criticises Modi's Silence| VIDEO The issue has also reached the highest political level. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the importance of maritime security while addressing an outreach session of the G7 Summit. He stressed that all countries must ensure maritime routes remain safe and that seafarers are able to carry out their duties without fear.Modi raised the matter a day before his bilateral talks with US President Donald Trump, underlining the significance India attaches to the safety of its citizens working at sea.The repatriation of the deceased sailors and the return of the rescued crew members mark an important step for their families. However, the deaths have also reinforced concerns about the risks faced by merchant seafarers in increasingly volatile maritime regions and the need for stronger safeguards to protect them.

Three vessels came under attack near the Strait of Hormuz last week, leaving three Indian seafarers dead. The attacks have once again highlighted the risks faced by the thousands of Indian seafarers who keep global trade moving through some of the world’s most volatile waters. While the United States and Iran have agreed to a peace deal, will normalcy will return to the region? What it means for Indian crews still operating in these waters?

Relations at lowest ebb in years after Washington refuses to apologise for deaths in strait of HormuzFury has continued to mount in India over the US’s refusal to apologise for the deaths of Indian sailors killed in strikes in the strait of Hormuz, further straining relations between the two countries as their leaders meet at the G7 summit in France this week.Last week, three Indian seafarers, who were working on board commercial oil tankers, were killed when the US launched missile strikes on the vessel as it sailed through the strait of Hormuz. Continue reading...