Why Did Iran Seize UK Sailors Near Royal Navy Waters?

[Yonoz]

Hands up

Sky News has released an interview they filmed with the captain of the arrested team a few days before their detention. In it the captain stated their mission was to stop ships to search for terrorists which as already shown is illegal under the Law of the Sea so as I said the excuse the British gov't gave about searching for smuggled cars was just that - an excuse or to be more precise - a lie and crucially he also said part of his mission was to gather intel on Iran

I wonder which part of the UN mandate the British claimed their people to be operating under authorised this? http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html

It's all explained in the article:

"Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

"Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran."

The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to "keep our people safe".

He said: "Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.

"We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that."

He added: "The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working."

Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions.

"It's good to gather int on the Iranians," he said.

You've seen too many American action movies. When you hear "gathering intelligence" you must think it means some sort of 007 diving around and photographing stuff. The truth is most intelligence gathering in the form of observation diaries and casually talking with the locals. Intelligence gathering is an inherent part of every military activity, and in the form described in the article is not only reasonable but necessary considering the UN mandate.

If Sky had broadcast this interview before their release I doubt very much they would be back home in England now.

To the discredit of whom?

 

[Art]

Originally Posted by Anttech There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of "condemnation" of Guantanamo, and renditioning to there. Why would the UK demand immediate release of Iranians? The press is already denouncing those confessions and a load of crap. But I still don't see what the hell that has got to do with the UK demanding its troops back from Iran?
Im not pleading non mea culpa, I am saying that the US isn't the UK. America absolutely does as it pleases, the UK has no control over what it does. I don't think its a fair comparison at all. If UK military personal were being taken to Guantanamo then I am sure there would be just a big fuss, and actually many MP's in the UK are screaming and shouting about Guantanamo. But I still don't get the link to the current Iranian crises

Did you read the news report I linked to? The BRITISH arranged for two of their residents to be renditioned by the US. This makes BRITAIN directly responsible for their subsequent treatment. And for the umpteenth (and last) time the link to Iran is the double standards Blair showed in his reaction between how Iran treated it's prisoners and how the US treats hers some of which BRITAIN very deliberately helped put in Guantanamo!

Originally Posted by Anttech what have they lied about? The car smuggling? and...? Even if they are doing other operations it still seems feasible they were looking for cars.

I read the News report, and it doesn't seem such a scoop. Big deal they were gathering intelligence, or in other words, were asking questions. Its normal procedure especially in the battle field, or close to it.

lol if only every country was as blase about being spied on as you evidently are.

I presume you do know intelligence gathering is a euphamism for spying, don't you. So apart from lying to cover up illegal searches at sea the UK gov't also lied when it said it's forces were acting within it's UN mandate and lying about the nature of the operation the UK forces were involved in. Or perhaps you can provide a link to where the UK gov't said "big deal they were only doing a bit of spying on Iran" or perhaps like Yonoz and the British defence ministry you are suggesting this spying was authorised by the UN whose mandate Blair repeatedly cited as raison for the captured UK forces' operation? Here's a link to the mandate the MNF are operating under. Perhaps you can show me where spying on Iran was mandated as I can't seem to find it. http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach....pdf+draft+resolution+1546&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

And yes spying is common but so are very long prison sentences if you get caught.

And Yonoz fyi the James Bond films were made by EON productions based in London's Piccadilly which also operates from Pinewood Studios in England so they are British action movies .

 

[Yonoz]

Why do you claim they were spying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage"

Espionage or spying is a practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Unlike other forms of intelligence work, espionage involves accessing the place where the desired information is stored, or accessing the people who know the information and will divulge it through some kind of subterfuge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence"

Military intelligence (abbreviated MI, int. Commonwealth, or intel. U.S.), is a military discipline that focuses on the gathering, analysis, protection, and dissemination of information about the enemy, terrain, and weather in an area of operations or area of interest. Intelligence activities are conducted at all levels from tactical to strategic, during peacetime and in war.

Having been a field intelligence officer myself I can tell you the vast majority of the intelligence work at the tactical level is simple observation work. This is basic, universally accepted military doctrine and not espionage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can you imagine the reaction were these soldiers interrogated using water boarding or other techniques approved by Rummy and Gonzales?

What would the Bush admin supporters be calling the Iranians then?

 

[Art]

Can you imagine the reaction were these soldiers interrogated using water boarding or other techniques approved by Rummy and Gonzales?

What would the Bush admin supporters be calling the Iranians then?

My point exactly

 

[Art]

Why do you claim they were spying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence"
Having been a field intelligence officer myself I can tell you the vast majority of the intelligence work at the tactical level is simple observation work. This is basic, universally accepted military doctrine and not espionage.

Just to clarify you are saying you would have no problem with an Arab nation stopping ships in or on the cusp of Israeli territorial waters and asking for information relating to Israeli military activities?

And as a former Israeli MI agent if you had come across such a situation you would have apologised for interrupting them and wished them well with their work?

 

[Anttech]

My point exactly

So why didnt you say that then rather than try and make comparisions that don't fit this thread

The UK don't interogate like that, so stop trying to pin something on the UK government which they didnt do Even if it is via proxy or not (or via association)

 

[Art]

So why didnt you say that then rather than try and make comparisions that don't fit this thread

The UK don't interogate like that, so stop trying to pin something on the UK government which they didnt do Even if it is via proxy or not (or via association)

wha?

 

[Anttech]

It appears the sailors and marines are more restricted now than they were when the Iranians had them . They are being flown back to the UK on a scheduled flight and journalists on the same flight have been refused any access to them. When they arrive back in the UK they will be transferred to a military base for debriefing again it is expected without any contact with the public; even their own families.

Perhaps the UK gov't is concerned in case they say something which embarrasses them?

btw anyone know where the US gov't is holding it's 5 Iranian hostages and how they are being treated?

Back to my point re hypocrisy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm
If that's duress what do you call 5 years in Guantanamo and yet their 'confessions' are considered sound!

^___ why are calling for the UK to call for the US to free Iranians, and also why are you mentioning confessions from Guantanamo prisoners under duress, in a thread about UNITED KINGDOM Sailors whom had been taken prisoner by Iranians?

That is how you associate what the UNITED STATES are doing in Guantanamo and the UNITED KINGDOM, and thus in making your point (in which I agree) it looks to me like you are pinning by associated the US's policy onto the UK. This is what I don't understand, and why I think what you are saying is irrelevant to this thread!

 

[Anttech]

Royal Navy personnel seized by Iran were blindfolded, bound and held in isolation during their 13 days in captivity, the crew have said.

They were also subject to random interrogation and rough handling, and faced constant psychological pressure.

In a joint statement the crew also stressed that they were inside Iraqi waters at the time of the capture.

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air said it became apparent that opposing their captors was "not an option."

"If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure," he said.

The crew said they spent nights in stone cells, sleeping on piles of blankets and were kept in isolation.

Earlier, the Royal Navy's head defended the actions of the personnel, after criticism that they gave up too easily.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the crew "reacted extremely well in very difficult circumstances".

He said British boarding operations being carried out in the Gulf had been "absolutely proper", but there would be a "complete review".

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6533069.stm

I hope this is the truth, if it isn't it will come back and haunt them down the line.

 

[Futobingoro]

Just to clarify you are saying you would have no problem with an Arab nation stopping ships in or on the cusp of Israeli territorial waters and asking for information relating to Israeli military activities?

At least half of that question is invalid due to the fact that it is very highly likely that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters. Britain's claim to that effect is backed up by ample GPS data from both their own account and from the captain of the boarded vessel. Iran also "mistakenly" released coordinates placing the incident in Iraqi waters before "correcting" the numbers. It seems that Iran wasn't playing with a full hand of cards in this encounter, but Britain probably had to make some concessions anyway due to the nature of the ordeal.

 

[Art]

Today

The crew said they spent nights in stone cells, sleeping on piles of blankets and were kept in isolation.

The pressures that we were subjected to were quite diverse in the way it was carried out. It was mainly psychological and emotional.

To start with the isolation was a major part of this and a complete suffocation in terms of information from the outside world.

Yesterday

By staying together as a team we kept our spirits up, drawing great comfort from the knowledge that our loved ones would be awaiting for us on our return to the UK," they added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6530801.stm

 

[Art]

At least half of that question is invalid due to the fact that it is very highly likely that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters. Britain's claim to that effect is backed up by ample GPS data from both their own account and from the captain of the boarded vessel. Iran also "mistakenly" released coordinates placing the incident in Iraqi waters before "correcting" the numbers. It seems that Iran wasn't playing with a full hand of cards in this encounter, but Britain probably had to make some concessions anyway due to the nature of the ordeal.

And yet as of yesterday the UK has suspended all boardings in the area pending the reinstatement of an Iraqi - Iran commission to agree the boundaries. It seems the boundaries shift over time and up until the allied invasion this commision used to meet every 3 years to draw the lines; it fell by the wayside following the overthrow of Saddam. So it would seem the situation is nothing like the black and white picture the UK gov't is trying to paint.

 

[Gokul43201]

And yet as of yesterday the UK has suspended all boardings in the area pending the reinstatement of an Iraqi - Iran commission to agree the boundaries. It seems the boundaries shift over time and up until the allied invasion this commision used to meet every 3 years to draw the lines; it fell by the wayside following the overthrow of Saddam. So it would seem the situation is nothing like the black and white picture the UK gov't is trying to paint.

Yet while the two sides have claimed different locations for the boarding operation (this after the Iranians did their reversal), I haven't seen any reports where they actually disagreed on the location of the border. But then, I haven't read every news story on the issue either, so I may have just missed it.

 

[Art]

Yet while the two sides have claimed different locations for the boarding operation (this after the Iranians did their reversal), I haven't seen any reports where they actually disagreed on the location of the border. But then, I haven't read every news story on the issue either, so I may have just missed it.

This from Craig Murray a former British ambassador and a former chief of the Maritime Section of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a man with hands-on experience in negotiating maritime borders.

March 28, 2007
Fake Maritime Boundaries

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) 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.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position.

Posted by craig on March 28, 2007 3:25 PM in the category War and Iran?

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/captured_marine.html

And here is what the Iraqis initially said about 'their' territory

— Iraq at first backed Iran. Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters, said on Saturday: “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control.” By Wednesday, Iraq backed Britain.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1588818.ece

And since the prisoners' release? On April 5th the Iraqi Foreign Minister on BBC Radio "The World at One" said "That border is disputed. It has been for many years. It has moved. That is why we had this war of maps...We have agreed with Iran that our technical levels will fix this border including in the Shatt-al-Arab."'

It seems the more 'certain' Blair claims to be about something the more sceptical listeners should be.

 

[Futobingoro]

Craig Murray's expertise does not insulate his conclusions from criticism.

Regarding section A: It is irrelevant if the maritime border shown by the British is incorrect. The incident happened within the scope of the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Regarding section B: It is also irrelevant if the merchant vessel was closer to Iranian than Iraqi land. The border within the Shatt al-Arab waterway was defined in the 1975 Algiers Agreement (which still stands) based upon a series of lines closely approximating the deepest channel of the waterway. This border ended at "Point R" - the point of the deepest channel adjacent to the mud flats of Iraq and Iran at the lowest possible tide. Those mud flats are under water most of the time, but they demonstrate the logic of the Algiers Agreement when exposed. It matters not if the merchant vessel was closer to Iranian than to Iraqi land, or if there was no formal Shatt al-Arab at that location and tide. If the vessel had remained there until the next low tide, it would have likely settled on mud flats connected to Iraq!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm : 29°50'21.60"N, 48°43'4.80"E

Coordinates of "Point R": 29°51′16″N, 48°44′45″E

It is easy to see how the merchant ship was southwest of Point R.

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/8272/mapmn4.png

Plot those coordinates yourself if you want to.

 

[Billy Bremner]

Futobingoro

Who says the 1975 Algiers Agreement is still valid? It stipulates ten year reviews because the channels and sandbanks, and so the thelweg, move, so the coordinates have to be replotted. As a war was fought over the Algiers Agreement, all three ten year reviews have been missed, so your version is over-simplistic.

The Iraqi Foreign Minister stated on the BBC on 5 April that the boundary is disputed and Iraq and Iran will be having technical talks to try and establish just where it is.

Another interesting thread on Murray's blog suggests that the given coordinates have far too shallow water for the Indian merchant ship pictured by the British Defense Department to have anchored there. A number of ships captains and naval personnel have added comments to say that is true.

 

[Art]

Craig Murray's expertise does not insulate his conclusions from criticism.

Regarding section A: It is irrelevant if the maritime border shown by the British is incorrect. The incident happened within the scope of the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Regarding section B: It is also irrelevant if the merchant vessel was closer to Iranian than Iraqi land. The border within the Shatt al-Arab waterway was defined in the 1975 Algiers Agreement (which still stands) based upon a series of lines closely approximating the deepest channel of the waterway. This border ended at "Point R" - the point of the deepest channel adjacent to the mud flats of Iraq and Iran at the lowest possible tide. Those mud flats are under water most of the time, but they demonstrate the logic of the Algiers Agreement when exposed. It matters not if the merchant vessel was closer to Iranian than to Iraqi land, or if there was no formal Shatt al-Arab at that location and tide. If the vessel had remained there until the next low tide, it would have likely settled on mud flats connected to Iraq!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm : 29°50'21.60"N, 48°43'4.80"E

Coordinates of "Point R": 29°51′16″N, 48°44′45″E

It is easy to see how the merchant ship was southwest of Point R.

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/8272/mapmn4.png

Plot those coordinates yourself if you want to.

This is really all just a smokescreen. First the Algiers agreement was abandoned by Saddam when he decided to go to war over the boundaries instead. But regardless even within the Algiers agreement there is a provision that the the Iranian and Iraqi commissions meet periodically precisely because of the shifting sands and mudbanks. They haven't met and so the borders are NOT defined. But hey don't take my word for it ask Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim the guy in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. He says the waters the incident took place are contested and I'd imagine he'd know!

I'm sure Iraq will be delighted that you have decided to grant them jurisdiction but I suspect they will continue anyway with their planned meeting with the Iranians to settle the issue and I further suspect the British navy will continue their suspension of activities in the area pending the outcome of said meeting.

 

[drankin]

This is really all just a smokescreen. First the Algiers agreement was abandoned by Saddam when he decided to go to war over the boundaries instead. But regardless even within the Algiers agreement there is a provision that the the Iranian and Iraqi commissions meet periodically precisely because of the shifting sands and mudbanks. They haven't met and so the borders are NOT defined. But hey don't take my word for it ask Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim the guy in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. He says the waters the incident took place are contested and I'd imagine he'd know!

I'm sure Iraq will be delighted that you have decided to grant them jurisdiction but I suspect they will continue anyway with their planned meeting with the Iranians to settle the issue and I further suspect the British navy will continue their suspension of activities in the area pending the outcome of said meeting.

Regardless of the exact boundaries, Iran initiated unwaranted hostilities towards the UK sailors, detained them, threatened them, and then made a mockery of them. It was all completely unnecessary. All Iran had to do is escort them out of what they perceived was their borders. But no, they wanted to screw with the UK.

 

[Futobingoro]

The Algiers Agreement is still in effect. It was never abrogated, as Iraq's 1980 unilateral withdrawal is not sufficient grounds for invalidation (per international law and the terms of the agreement itself). Additionally, Saddam Hussein wrote a letter to Iranian President Rafsanjani in August 1990 in which he confirmed Iraq's recognition of the 1975 agreement¹.

And regarding the natural changes of the course of the main channel, it seems that as far as the agreement is concerned, such changes must be "attested jointly by the competent technical authorities of the two Contracting Parties."

(Article 2)

1. The frontier line in the Shatt-al-Arab shall follow the Thalweg, i.e., the median line of the main navigable channel at the lowest navigable level, starting from the point at which the land frontier between Iran and Iraq enters the Shatt-al-Arab and continuing to the sea.
2. The frontier line, as defined in paragraph 1 above, shall vary with changes brought about by natural causes in the main navigable channel. The frontier line shall not be affected by other changes unless the two Contracting Parties conclude a special agreement to that effect.
3. The occurrence of any of the changes referred to in paragraph 2 above shall be attested jointly by the competent technical authorities of the two Contracting Parties.

So in spite of the fact that no joint survey of the waterway has since been carried out, no changes to the waterway have been recognized in a manner compliant with the agreement.

http://www.meij.or.jp/text/border/Iran-Iraq/iraqiran1975.htm

 

[Art]

The Algiers Agreement is still in effect. It was never abrogated, as Iraq's 1980 unilateral withdrawal is not sufficient grounds for invalidation (per international law and the terms of the agreement itself). Additionally, Saddam Hussein wrote a letter to Iranian President Rafsanjani in August 1990 in which he confirmed Iraq's recognition of the 1975 agreement¹.

And regarding the natural changes of the course of the main channel, it seems that as far as the agreement is concerned, such changes must be "attested jointly by the competent technical authorities of the two Contracting Parties."So in spite of the fact that no joint survey of the waterway has since been carried out, no changes to the waterway have been recognized in a manner compliant with the agreement.

http://www.meij.or.jp/text/border/Iran-Iraq/iraqiran1975.htm

You are arguing against the UK source YOU quoted

Complicating factors
Whatever the true location of the incident, there are a number of reasons for exercising caution before making categorical assertions about whether the incident took place in Iraqi or Iranian waters:

The unstable coastline
The coastline in the northern Gulf is far from stable, and it is quite possible that there is a legitimate dispute over the alignment of the median line. Iranian charts may show a different low-water line from British charts, and Iran is perfectly entitled to define its baseline using Iranian charts. While it seems unlikely that the mouth of the Shatt al Arab would have shifted sufficiently for the point given by the Ministry of Defence to be located on the Iranian side of the median line, if the incident took place further east (as the Iranian government is claiming) then it is quite possible that Iran has legitimate grounds for its claim that the British boat was operating on the wrong side of what is a de facto if not a de jure boundary. It is also arguable that the unstable coastline represents a special circumstance that justifies delimiting a territorial sea boundary that departes from the median line.

Iran is not a party to the law of the sea conventions
Iran is not a party to UNCLOS, nor to its predecessor, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Iran might therefore argue that it is not bound by the (identical) provisions of those conventions regarding baselines and territorial sea delimitation. However, if these these provisions have become customary international law (and that is widely considered to be the case) they would be binding on Iran.

Iran's straight baselines
Iran measures its territorial sea from a system of straight baselines. Even though the legitimacy of these baselines is questionable (straight baselines should only be drawn around coastlines which are deeply-indented or fringed with islands, and Iran's coastline is neither of these things) they certainly complicate the jurisdictional picture in the boundary area.

Issues relating to the 1975 boundary agreement
Article 2 of the 1975 protocol defining the land boundary made provision for the boundary to continue to follow the thalweg of the Shatt al Arab if the thalweg shifts as a result of natural causes; however, changes in the bed of the river "which would involve a change in the national character of the two state's respective territory" would not alter the course of the boundary. In Article 6 of the protocol it was agreed that a joint survey of the Shatt al Arab would be made at least every 10 years. No such joint survey appears to have taken place, so there may be a question as to whether the boundary still follows the line defined in 1975 or whether it actually follows the course of the thalweg of the river today.

Some commentators have cast doubt on whether the 1975 boundary agreement is still valid. It is true that Iraq unilaterally abrogated the agreement in September 1980 and declared its sovereignty over the whole of the Shatt al Arab. However, in the aftermath of the eight-year war between the two countries that followed, Saddam Hussein confirmed Iraq's recognition of the 1975 agreement in a letter to President Rafsanjani in August 1990.

One further point to note about the 1975 protocol: Article 7 provided for freedom of navigation for Iranian and Iraqi vessels "regardless of the delimitation of each country's territorial sea".

And since when have nations been unable to unilaterally abrogate treaties? Can you provide a source for this amazing claim?

Not to mention that practically every article in the Algier's agreement is currently being violated by the mere presence of MNF forces in the waterways!
For example

3. Either of the two Contracting Parties may authorize foreign warships visiting its ports to enter the Shatt-al-Arab, provided that such vessels do not belong to a country in a state of belligerency, armed conflict or war with either of the two Contracting Parties and provided that the other Party is so notified no less than 72 hours in advance.
4. The two Contracting Parties shall in every case refrain from authorizing the entry to the Shatt-al-Arab of merchant vessels belonging to a country in a state of belligerency, armed conflict or war with either of the two Parties.

According to these clauses MNF ships shouldn't be in any part of the waterway whether it be Iranian or Iraqi territory.

 

[Art]

Regardless of the exact boundaries, Iran initiated unwaranted hostilities towards the UK sailors, detained them, threatened them, and then made a mockery of them. It was all completely unnecessary. All Iran had to do is escort them out of what they perceived was their borders. But no, they wanted to screw with the UK.

This isn't a case of evil Iran suddenly to everybody's shock and horror grabbing peace loving people out of the blue as a result of Iran's inate evilness as warmongers like to portray.

Iran has 2 hostile carrier groups hovering off her shores whilst their C in C makes ever more belligerent threats against them. Meanwhile mini-me is stopping ships looking for intel on Iran in what the Iranians believe to be their waters. What would you expect Iran to do? And if this was happening to the US with China loitering off your shores with 2 carrier groups whilst N Korea played the role of mini-me I wonder what action you would be advocating from your gov't?

 

[Futobingoro]

(post deleted)

 

[drankin]

This isn't a case of evil Iran suddenly to everybody's shock and horror grabbing peace loving people out of the blue as a result of Iran's inate evilness as warmongers like to portray.

Iran has 2 hostile carrier groups hovering off her shores whilst their C in C makes ever more belligerent threats against them. Meanwhile mini-me is stopping ships looking for intel on Iran in what the Iranians believe to be their waters. What would you expect Iran to do? And if this was happening to the US with China loitering off your shores with 2 carrier groups whilst N Korea played the role of mini-me I wonder what action you would be advocating from your gov't?

I guess that's just it. You are suggesting that Iran should have the same authority or respect as the US/UK in this kind of situation. They should not and do not. Their history has shown them to be untrustworthy. The reason the UN does not want them to have nukes is because their government is not one that acts responsibly. You are defending the right of a rogue nation to be rogue. They need to prove to the rest of the world that they are a nation that deserves the respect of any other civilization. Which they continually do not.

 

[Yonoz]

Just to clarify you are saying you would have no problem with an Arab nation stopping ships in or on the cusp of Israeli territorial waters and asking for information relating to Israeli military activities?

As long as there is no territorial breach and it is not clandestine, nope.

And as a former Israeli MI agent if you had come across such a situation you would have apologised for interrupting them and wished them well with their work?

Again, if it is outside territorial waters there is nothing to do about it.

Nations in this region, even those at peace, constantly collect open intelligence about their neighbours, at all levels - from watching border guards' routine to monitoring the media . This is known as OSINT - Open Source INTelligence. Even espionage has become somewhat acceptable - just as long as you know what they know about you. Counter-intelligence involves providing false information via these mediums.