I had a few minutes to spare so I checked out some hard-left opinion boards for their take on the Iranian detention of 15 British military personnel. Naturally they take the position that Britain is in the wrong and that the boats were in Iranian waters (even though the Iranian’s have changed their mind once on where the boats were).
The hard-left seem to have arrived at this position on the basis that Blair has past form as a liar, and pretty much everything we do is evil. Craig Murray, always a rational voice, agrees with the conclusion – if maybe not the hypothesis - claiming Iran is indeed justified: -
“In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim…
“For the Royal Navy, to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative.”
Really, so it’s the British who are being “provocative.†I must have missed a memo.
In fairness to Mr. Murray, this was written a few days ago, and has since blogged a response the British provided coordinates (which supposedly prove the Brits were in Iraqi waters). Murray argues: -
The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
Hmmm. Surely the reversal of this argument, asking why Iran is detaining British personnel, who were not in legally defined Iranian waters, works too? If there is no legally defined border, this must help London as much as Tehran. So why Craig, are you finding reasons to side with such an intolerant and illiberal regime? I’m not playing the rightwing “us and them†trick I promise, but isn’t this just evidence of the proclivity of the left to side with any position contrary to that of the West?
Either way, it’s a rather repugnant situation. And the Iranians are reinforcing the belief of many in the international community that they are an insidious regime and a danger to stability in the region (yes, I am aware of the irony of a Brit accusing anyone else of destabilising the region).
Parading servicemen (and especially servicewomen) on television is a nauseating spectacle, but the Iranians are pretty cute at this, often forcing dissidents to repent on television. The Iranians have scored an own goal, and I can’t imagine Iran’s allies, Russia and China, are happy with the development. This is simply more evidence that the Americans can throw at the UN Security Council in light of future sanctions.
Tehran has dangerously overplayed its hand, and while there is little Britain can do to get their people back (short of a dangerous rescue attempt), Iran will rue this act of folly when the debts are called in.
That the Iranians have abandoned plans to begin releasing the detainees, based on supposed “wrong behaviour†by the British, is further evidence that Tehran is dangerously deluded as to its moral righteousness in this incident.
Tehran should know it is feeding red meat to the hawks in Washington.
Sphere: Related Content
I just have one question: which side is likely to lose the most by this incident?
Very well argued tyger, the Iranians are wholly wrong if the boat was outside their waters (which satellite seems to show it was) - if the boat was inside their waters, then they are still, in my view, showing “wrong behaviour” to make an international incident of a minor error, if indeed it was.
Jose, I think Iran can only lose unless the UK fumble a rescue attempt.
I think the Americans at the Security Council win Jose. But let’s remember, regardless of where the boat was, the parading of the female captive, and the clearly engineered letters, are nothing short of a disgrace.
Thanks Mr.Z. I disagree utterly with those who claim the Iranians are playing a good hand.
The Iranian body politic is so fractured, it’s no surprise such an idiotic plan has been enacted.
I see my comment #6 was deleted.
Jose,
It may have been the spam filter - very erratic over the last few hours. The blog is under attack. I would never deliberately delete a genuine comment.
I may have vaporised it accidentally when I deleted about 50 Spams that had got through, apologies if I did.
Will check the SPAM bin.
I’ll repeat it then, if not verbatim at least its sense. Thank you, Tyger. No problem.
I have another question: If the Iranians captured the British sailors and Marines in Iraqi waters, why the Iraqis have not protested for the Iranian invasion of their territorial waters?
In this connection, my tendency after what happened with Iraq and the lies poured over us, is not to believe prima facie what one side says.
With news that there may be moves that the sailrs wil be put on trial, Iran is digging itself deeper and deeper into the mire. Even if the sailors shouldn’t have been where they were, Iran’s response has been disgraceful
There is an ingrained feeling of paranoia in Iran about Britan. we certainly did interfere in the past (including the deposition of one shah and occupation during WWII - which was justified in my view given the Shah’s sympathies). Britain is blamed for bombings in Iran, the presence of the sailors on whatever side of the border was probably seen as some sinsiter act. Doesn’t make it right - Iran is still well in the wrong over this matter…
Bloody hell a comment not featuring cats!
And a very wise contribution it is too Jams.
I will endevour to reply to posts, and emails tomorrow.
I have been out today with the family, and tonight I’m out also.
Have a nice eve.