Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] News Alert: Iran's Leader Says He'll Release 15 Britons (fwd)

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 4/4/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > On 4/4/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Iranians first statement of the position was within Iraqi waters,
> >> but they then retracted that and gave a different position.  At least
> >> that is what the British are saying.
> >
> > But the point is that there is no agreed-upon boundary here. The British
> > are using a plausible boundary line, and I am not saying they are wrong,
> > but it would not surprise me if what the British, the Iraqis and the
> > Iranians thought was the boundary were three different things here.
>
> Can you see this?:
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/29/world/0329-for-webBRITAIN.jpg
>
> I think that image is freely available.  If it isn't, I can put it on my
> server for you.

I can see it, but I don't understand why you're pointing it out
because there obviously could also be a disagreement about where the
boat was, as well. Nevertheless:

[snip]

>  Are the Iranians contesting the
> boundary?  I haven't heard that.  I did find this:
>
> http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1923.shtml
>
>     Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray maintains "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 . . . The published
>     boundary is a fake with no legal force."
>
> I found other documents arguing that the boundary is "poorly defined" and
> such, but none saying that the British and Iranians disagree about where
> the boundary lies.

First up is that I think it's time to point out that it might not be a
great idea to talk about "the Iranians" as a single, coherent
governmental entity, because they have a truly bizarre system. What
mattered for the seizure was what (I believe) the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard initially thought. Everything after that was
apparently various factions that share some control over what passes
as the government in Iran trying to figure out what the heck to do and
how the situation might possibly be used to their advantage.

Second is that I did read something like the quote you cite (I believe
in the FT) which points out that the situation here is really unclear.
I suspect that the British have a much better idea where their ships
were than anybody in Iran did, and it is likely they had the position
pretty close to exactly right. But the tolerances here are not that
large; I think even on your map, the differences in position are less
than a mile.

Anyway, we seem to be back to an uneasy status quo, and the US has not
attacked Iran...yet.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion