Oh, not again! Iranian navy detains five Britons on yacht in Gulf
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8387469.stm


:damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:

At least it's not a Royal Navy vessel this time...

A British yacht, strange. I would have understoo it if they would have caught a yacht from Switzerland - but a British again, some of their most trustworthy dhimmis? :woot:Maybe Gaddafhi has demanded some kind of a monopole until the end of the year to belittle the Swiss? :D

Typical Iranian arrogance, as if they were a threat to their country,:nope: it's pure politics, hopefully they are released soon!:oops::yep:

Sabre rattling of it's finest. Someone is really trying to piss us of. Some small kids they are.:nope:

Hey yeah- out of my curiosity, why exactly were they yachting around there anyway? I mean, they know that region has problems, they know that as foreigners it's probably not a good idea to be messing around so close out there... yet they did anyway. So does anybody know?

This is almost as hilarious as those hikers who wandered over into Iran. Again, you know the region as a whole has problems, you know that as foreigners it's probably not a good idea to be wandering around there, yet you do anyway and are shocked when something happens to you... why lol? You willingly did it, you had better expect the consequences. Next time, pick someplace less hostile to hike, like the Alps or Rocky Mountains. And the same goes for these yachters. Next time, pick someplace less hostile to sail. The planet is covered in 3/4ths water, so it's not like there aren't plenty of safer places you can.

Eeeexactly! :yep:

Well why not?

If you read the article it sounds like they had drifted into Iranian waters.

Also the Iranian navy aren't averse to pulling the old 'in our waters trick' are they?

If they messed up they messed up. No need to get holier than thou about it?

The german news says that they wanted to take part in the regatta Dubai-Muscat. The boat is part of a sailing project Sail Bahrain.

They just need bigger deck guns on their yacht:yeah:.

How about anti-missile defenses? They're going to need some way to fend off the shore batteries.

Maybe next year these guys can try the coast of Somalia, and when they get into trouble . .
They're on their own.

It certainly wouldn't be the Royal Yacht either :DL

Aaaand, they're released:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8389946.stm

The Tehran correspondent summed it up quite well:

Excellent news, I bet they and their loved ones are doing some celebrating!!:yep:

It would help their legitimacy if the Iranian government didn't consider that ENTIRE waterway as THEIR waters. They have a habit of "detaining" ships from "International" waters while CLAIMING that the ships are in THEIR waters.

Which waterway?
Do you know what international waters means?
Besides which no one is claiming the yacht was in international waters, it rests entirely on the right of innocent passage in territorial waters.

They don't, the problem is there aren't any clear markers (like a line of buoys for instance) to mark where exactly the line between their waters and international waters are. So it's really a matter of estimation for your average patrol boat. And the fact that they're British gives them all the more reason to watch them like hawks, because the Anglo-Iranian history is not exactly a pleasant one. Occupation and threats flying from both sides during World War II, two coups by the Brits with the aid of the CIA (which put Dr. Mossadegh in power, but when he wouldn't agree to simply hand out free oil to the two nations, they removed him and reinstated the monarchy), combined with their support for the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War through funding and weaponry secrets (along with the United States, they gave Iraq poison gas secrets and funding).

The rights to the Shatt-al-Arab waterway is very complex.

Iran and Iraq have been fighting over the Shatt-al-Arab waterway for a very long time. Even before there was an Iraq or Iran. The first treaty for this waterway was in 1639!

The Algiers Agreement of 1975 established the border along the thalweg principle (mid-river) and was later rejected by Iraq. However the Algiers agreement of 1975 still remains the "official" treaty on this issue.

It was this waterway and rights to navigation that was one of the reasons for the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's.

In the 1990's Iraq drained some marshlands in an attempt (successful) to redirect the waterway in order to claim total control. The original intent of thalweg was to always have the border along the deepest portion of the river (theoretically in the middle). This means that the border can change depending on where the deepest part of the river is. Hence the desire of the Iraqis to change the flow of the river. However interpretations of the '75 treaty treated the border to be static and consisting of straight lines. Arguments pro/con this interpretation continue to this day.:damn:

The rational was that static borders and ones consisting of straight lines makes it easier to control the border. Both sides agreed but disagreed on where the straight lines should be.

This was compounded by US attempts to "restore" the marshlands in early 2004, but also in a way that favoured Iraq.

UNSCR resolution 1723 authorized the British to patrol the waterway and this further pissed off the Iranians. The British patrol in accordance to the 1975 treaty and the "static" interpretation.

Hence, the Iranians are very very sensitive of anyone infringing on what they consider "their" side of the waterway. These captures and releases (there have been at least 8 in the past few years) are not frivolous. In order for the Iranians to be able to make their case for redefining the borders, they have an obligation to enforce (through their actions) border security or risk losing their claim of sovereignty.

This is why the Iranians always catch and release any "invaders". This is also why other countries, especially the US, need to stay out of these issues and allow the Iranians to do what they really have to do without making a big deal out of it.

However, since the US has a policy of always interpreting Iranian actions in the worse possible light, our press and our State Department often have to make bellicose statements, which the Iranian government ignores and release as they originally intended.

This gives the US State Department the chance to pat themselves on the backs and proclaim that the "hostages" were released due to their intervention. Yeah, whatever. :nope:

More than you probably wanted to know about the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, and I have only briefly touched on the major points. This is a complicated and complex issue. But rather interesting actually. :)

But Platypus this incident was not in the Shatt, it was in the Gulf itself.
Though as you mention the patrols in that waterway and the associated problems then the second incident with the RN was outside the river and the dispute centred on competing claims of extention of the thalweg line out to sea which had never been adressed let alone resolved. That is why the second incident wasn't covered by the UN resolution and the British admiralty had declared it off limits for patrols.

I suppose it would be easiest just to mention for Blacklights information that the whole lot of waters, be it the straights, the gulf or the Shatt al arab simply don't contain anything that is legally international waters.

That is correct that this incident took place in the gulf. My comment was aimed at the people referring to the waterway, not specifically this incident.