15 captured British soldiers -- Iranian or Iraqi territory?

[Eleusis]

The news coverage on the BBC presents this as they were in Iraqi water and the Iranians captured them at gun point. But, a colleague of mine has just told me that the borders are actually in dispute. Is this so? Does anyone know the story on the dispute?

BBC coverage

However, I must say though even if they did stray into Iranian waters, is that justification to capture them at gun point? I wouldn't think so!

The reaction of the Iranians is totally relevant to their borders, the most important of which is Iraq.

I didn't support the war in Iraq, am not a big fan of Bush or Blair but tend to beleive that these sailors were in Iraqi waters at the time they were captured for many reasons - the fact that they were aboard an Iraqi ship (no-one from that ship was arrested for being in Iranian waters), the fact that the original co-ordinates the Iranians initially gave were indisputably in Iraqi waters which even they acknowledge and the fatc that previous captives were possibly in disputed territory and the navy have (I understand) been very careful to be clear of disputed water since then.

I can see why Iran is pissed off with the west about their double standards with nuclear power but it is not and can never been acceptable to capture foreign nationals from outside your border for any country expecting to be taken seriously (including the USA, Britain etc)

Eh, no. You are very very optimistic about the UK's inability to lie. I am not.

but it is quite hard to fabricate GPS positions - I doubt Tony blair or George bush were personally tinkering with the satellites co-ordinates

Heh hem... the double standards are about nuclear weapons.

And that issue is of course a UN mandate. It is supported by many countries around the world.

If you believe that we are in Iraq in breach of International Law, then you are less likley to be optimistic about the US/UK motives and their dealings with Iran or any other country in that region.

OI! This thread is not about Iraq and it is not about George Bush. Stop it. I want to talk about Iran.

No, the double standards are re. why it is ok to for the US and UK to persistently breach international law and yet dictate to others that they must not.

yes I know ele and it is a double standard even if supported by the UN. Bizarrely, I'm not necessarily anti the double standard - what in effect it says it that all countries are NOT equal and we trust some countries with nuclear wepaons more than others. A bit like how you would trust some people to keep a gun responsibly and not other others but I can see how that would right royally piss off Iran.

I find it interesting that you think Iran can be analysed in any meaniful way in isolation of what is happening to its neighbours.

So do we all trust Israel to have nuclear weapons then ?

Even more amusing that a discussion of Iran should avoid a discussion of George Bush

well they've had them a while and not used them, they were shelled duing the first Gulf war quite badly and didn't retaliate. So I would say that to the extent I trust anyone with nuclear weapons (which I don't but thats no longer a reality), yes, on balance I do.

and no I'm no apologist for Israel either, I think its outrageous the financial support they get from teh US compared to the pittance that the palestinians get in aid.

It wasn't an iraqi ship they were boarding, was an indian merchant vessel.
The coordiantes provided by that vessel and the lynk helicopter that provided initial support show that the boat was in iraqi waters.
Iran completely in the wrong, indefensible IMO.
Pros/cons/rights/wrongs of the Iraqi conflict nothing to do with the basis question about whether the British personnel were in Iranian waters.

Sue - the whole point about having nuclear weapons is to have them as a deterant. The only time they have been used is by the Allies against Japan.

I think it is hypocritcal to assume that a country like Iran will actually use it's nuclear weapons (if they ever get them which is not guaranteed) and that Israel or the US or the UK will not.

Yes, but it isn't really about water boundries, is it ? I think most serious political analysts would die of shock if someone said don't talk about Iran's neighbours or global politics when you are discussing Iran and it's capture of British navy personnel !

I can't see why anyone thinks that Iranian actions can be analysed in isolation of it's neighbours and it's perceived isolation/feelings of threat by the US. Am I repeating myself, I think I am !

They are trying to get the release of Iranian officials captured by the Americans and being held illegally by the US army. Does this make it more relevant ? May be not "justified", but bloody relevant !

you might think the whole point of nuclear weapons is as a deterrants but not everyone thinks that. Some people have guns to protect themselves, some use them to as wepaons of first resort.

My point was that although there is a double standard operating - eg Israel vs Iran re nuclear weapons, it is driven by the assesment of a majority of UN nations that Iran can't be relied on to use them only as a deterrent. Whether you like that statement or not, that is the position.

The UN does not work in isolation of the political interests of its memebers. It is also dominated by the Big Five in the Secruity Council who do not particularly love Iran, although China and Russia have good relations with it. It is not in the interests of other nations for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Most countries, if they had the means and knowldge, expertise, money etc, wouldn't mind having a nuclear capability. They just don't have the means to get their hands on them. So the best they can do is PREVENT other countries from acquiring them. If Iran acquires them (and it is a big IF) Israel won't be very happy, so it must be prevented at all costs. You have to see it in context. It ain't just a case of the good, the bad, the ugly or the evil. It is power politics.

Okay, someone needs to say it. It is all about oil. The regime in Iran has surrounded themselves with allies who areinterested in profits from Iran's oil. The regime in Iran in return gets the support of these countries. The regime in Iran (which is all too often the case) is not sharing the profit with the people for the good of the country. So, the people of Iran are very unhappy, but the are powerless against the huge powerful nations which support their government.

The people of Iran would be better off if all their oil dried up.

And speaking of all this oil, can someone explain to me why they would need nuclear power?

its ecologically more sound eleusis They are concerned about the environment.

I happen to agree that there is a huge hypocrisy involved in nations such as the UK, US, France etc refusing to "allow" other nations to develop nuclear capability while maintaining their own. This does not excuse Iran's culpability in this matter, where they have clearly taken RN personnel from inside Iraqi waters, as proved by their OWN DATA (before the convenient "correction").

The parading of Leading Seaman Turney on television breaches the spirit, if not the letter, of the Third Geneva Convention.

And your point regarding Iranians held by the US? The Iranian Foreign Ministry has specifically denied they are aiming for a prisoner swap. Unless you are suggesting they are lying...

Which huge powerful nations support Iran for it's oil ? Are you talking about the 1960's or 70's or 2007 ? Not even China or Russia or Japan (which is heavily reliant on Iranian oil) "support" Iran. They have good relations with Iran, but they don't love them.

Iran's Shah was heavily supported by the UK and US until 1978 - 1979 when we suddenly decided the Shah was getting too big for his shoes (OPEC, bullying the weak Persian Gulf Arabs, etc) and decided he wasn't worth supporting (aka Saddam Hussein ??) and that a change of regime via revolution was inevitable. So they dumped him in it.

Iran has had a civilian nuclear power programme since 1960's, i.e. the Shah started the programme. The UK and US didn't have a problem with it then (actually actively supported it by providing expertise and equipment) because Iran was a friend. The Russians have been helping out the civilian programme since that time and don't have as big a issue with it now, although I doubt they would want Muslim Iran to have nuclear weapons.

We have a problem with Iran now because it is no longer regarded as a friend.

As for a civilan nuclear programme in an oil/gas rich country, it isn't that absurd. Oil and gas don't last for ever.

The problem of rentier economies (where oil wealth doesn't trickle down to the poor fast enough) is not just an Iranian problem. It affects all oil/gas rich countries with large populations.

Sorry, you are talking to someone who used to be a research analyst in oil and gas

littleEaster - no I strongly object to talk of the Geneva Convention when we are so good at bloody violating it at every turn in countries we have occupied. We do not have the moral high ground re. international law, so perhaps we should shut about it in lecturing the Iranians or anyone else about it ?

Oh yes, I'm sorry, I had overlooked the ecological benefits of nuclear reactors.

So, can you explain this one for me...

Iran (as we all know is suspected of enriching uranium to weapons grade). The US would like to to prove this. If you test the nearby trees, you can prove it. So, the US was going to do this once to a large wooded area, Iran caught wind, and before the US (or possibly UN) got there, guess what? the entire woodland had been been cut down and disposed of....

My brother, who is in the US Army and has served in the region told me this story. I can't remember all the specifics but I could probably find out from him. He believes very strongly that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and if they succeed they will use them.

I personally don't know, but I value my brother's expertice as sodier, chemical engineer, and Nuclear and Biological Weapons Specialist.