Looking Back on Fifteen UK Sailors captured by Iranian Forces

When fifteen (15) British sailors were captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the majority of Western news sources spun the event in a manner that might make Iran look more worthy of punishment than never before. The Royal Navy allegedly stopped an Iranian ship believed to be smuggling stolen cars, but while performing the stop, Iranian forces captured the Royal Navy sailors. The headlines in many of the Western papers were mostly "Iran seizes British soldiers in international waters" or "EU upset with Iran's conduct in taking prisoners" ... and of course one Turkish paper (Sabah) with two odd headlines, one of them condemning Iran for seizing the soldiers, the other saying that Iran captured the Soldiers in Iranian water. Once again, the random ass Turkish paper is one of the few sources to give the truth. This happened before, when the only news source which explained who was responsible for Israel's invasion into Lebanon, was some random Turkish newspaper. Those silly Turks, always letting the truth slip out and making the west look bad.

The point is that all the western news sources are quick to ignore who has the territorial sovereignty as they disseminate information to the public, but internally they know full well the laws. Foreign governments have no right to enter and express sovereignty under Iran's jurisdiction, and even if the matter occurred in international waters, article 110 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that military ships are "not justified in boarding [a foreign ship] unless there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting...; (d) the ship is without nationality or (e) ...the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship." Boarding of ships involved in the illicit drug trade is also permitted. What were the reasonable grounds for suspicion of any of those items? Allegedly the boarding occurred because the British soldiers believed the Iranian ship was transporting stolen cars. I'm not sure if that even falls into one of the exceptions listed under 110, but even if it does, how do they prove reasonable grounds for suspicion?


Initially this is what the NY Times showed


The British version


Map without boundary drawn in


Map with maritime boundary defined by equidistance (international maritime norm)


Now, it's my understanding that there are no current treaties over maritime boundaries between Iran and Iraq, much less other hostile nations, considering the Iran-Iraq war, the revolution, and the multitude of border disputes which have occurred since the revolution. As such, it's customary international law for two states to determine a boundary by equidistance. See Article 15 of the UNCLOS This concept of equidistance is customary law going back in time until the dawn of maritime law. Just about every coastal state recognizes it. The only ways around this law are by treaty or "where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."

Although there was a treaty between Iran and Iraq from 1975 that define the border in Britain's favor here, two revolutions (one by Iran and one by Iraq) and a long war probably terminated most of the treaties from before 1979. Those boundaries can't be relied on more than treaties and maps from 1500 when the Persian empire stretched across to Saudi Arabia.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to defend Ahmadinejad or the Islamic Republic of Iran, but established customary law must be respected, regardless of who it protects. These laws can go both ways and if the UK is allowed to bend the law with phoney territorial boundaries, then other countries may find themselves justified to do the same. And I feel completely at ease saying "phoney" because if those were in fact Iraqi waters, then what Iran did by seizing the Brits would have led the US forces to react with lightning speed and thunderous consequence. But the US did not back up their allies, in a situation which if it was Iraqi waters would not only be justified, but beneficial to the US in almost every way. Ask yourself why. The British sailors admitted that they were in Iranian waters, the maps say those waters were Iranian. The facts don't seem in the UK's favor.

So what's so interesting about all this is how people played this into a critical situation for Iran, and how analysts tried to double think the Iranian government. Make no mistake - Iran knew exactly what it was doing, as this even was a replay of the events from 2004.

2004
American and British Soldiers That Were Captured and Later Released by Iran in 2004 Displayed on Iranian TV

2007
Iran TV shows captured sailors

Iran captures soldiers, Iran shows them on tv to the people of Iran, dressed nice, looking good and healthy and well treated, Iran releases the soldiers. In a nutshell, Iran is civil and in control, the UK is confused and sloppy. So what's it all mean? Iran isn't afraid to assert it's territorial sovereignty and if anyone wants to challenge it, Iran will play the media game to the hilt.


Looking Good, Mates!

special thanks to Shooresh in Scotland for his research.