Where is a water border between Iran and Iraq?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Mar 28, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OU2VHMIUICYQ5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/03/28/whostage428.xml

    Here we see a very interesting map. There exists a universal rule to determine a water border line - "what coast is nearer?".

    PS. Out of the theme. There is a dispute between Russia and Norway about a water border. Russia insisit on a line from the coast to the Nothern Pole. But Norway using mentioned principle disagrees with the line.

    Soviet Union had similar problem with Sweden in Baltic sea. Soviet Union thought that 'the coast' should exclude' Gottland island while the Swedes opposed it. As a result there was 'a grey zone' that was divided (75% to Soviet Union, 25% to Sweden).
  2. No. 12 miles off shore perpendicular to the 'coast' (mudflats or above tides, up to you/Iran). Where they overlap is contested waters, which have never been resolved between Iraq and Iran.
  3. The FO/Admiralty spokesmen on the BBC1 TV lunchtime news speak of "high quality" evidence about the location. That might indicate an intercept location clearly in Iraqi waters, not in a disputed zone.
  4. Further to Caubeens post, a Rear Admiral (ret'd) has just said on the Beeb News at 1 that the Royal Navy operate an 'operational line' to the west of the median. This in order to ensure that they don't cross the median by accident.
  5. In another thread here, I asked how easy it is to falsify GPS logs. Seems it is no way dificult. So much for 'high grade' evidence.
  6. Independently-provided satellite imagery of the event will no doubt show the exact position of the relative vessels - as noted by the gubmint this lunch-time.

    It would appear that the Iranians were actually operating 1.7 miles inside Iraqi territorial waters when they kidnapped the Royal Navy personnel.

    As ever, Mr B Liar has managed to cover himself with shite over his pathetic mis-management of this affair. HE should have taken immediate charge, rather than foist the problem onto his horse-faced underling while he ponced around Berlin listening to fiddle music and later apologising to a qumpus of Ghanaian slave-traders for buying slaves from them 200 years ago.

  7. Wherever the international lines may be, I doubt we'll ever find out. GPS can be easily altered (from a log point of view), either side could alter. I'm not saying one way or the other.

    Either way, I don't fancy their chances. NOT because I think Iran will necessarily do anything horrible to them (in all honesty, knowing that region very well, I don't think they will do anything awful), but they won't get decent support upon their return. Of that I feel fairly confident having been in a similar situation myself.
  8. Even if the median is disputed, HMSCornwall and the operation were 1.7 nautical miles to the west of it, and I do not believe the dispute is carried that farto the west.

    The ship that the marines were leaving when seized is still anchored in the same place - 1.7 nautical miles to the west of the median. A gps reading has been produced to prove this.

    The evidence.[/quote]

    It seems unlikely that HMG would have gone so large on this, if they were not entirely confident that the whole affair took place comfortably within Iraqi waters, and that publicised maps, GPS co-ordinates etc. bore this out.

    Even Bliar can't manipulate maps and GPS readings so as to convince a map-literate public audience, some of which might be pro-Iran and very sceptical. And in this incident, he seemingly didn't need to.

    BTW, it now seems (ITV news, 1400hrs) that the 15 personnel are to be "shown" later today.
  9. The part I found a little suspicious was when the Iranians had originally given the co-ordinates of the Sailors & Marines, they were inside Iraqi Territorial waters. When this was pointed out to the Iranians, they then changed their story. They can't even lie properly. They are just sabre rattling. Time for Bliar to rattle a bigger sabre methinks? Lets move HMS Cornwall into the position where the Iranians said they originally captured the troops and then see if they have big enough brass ones to take on a frigate. From the BBC interviews, Cornwall seems to be bristling with armaments.

    Maybe the Yanks can help with their two Aircraft Carriers.
  10. On the basis of your argument, Bush would then have carte blanche to attack Iran - with the UK dragged in whether it likes it or not.

    HMS Cornwall remains at anchor and is standing firm - presumably so that all the world can work out the location of the intercept for itself.
  11. Not wanting to piss on anyone's chips - but I thought this was off limits until the matter was resolved for OPSEC?

    My finger is poised over the neck-winding-in switch, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong...
  12. Here is proof that the ship that was searched was in Iraqi waters.

  13. How come it was two days before anyone thought to go and get that photo?
  14. I too thought this was still off limits (despite being guilty of posting in another GPS thread.)
  15. Sergey

    Part of the border problem is that the 12 mile rule doesn't work between Iran/Iraq or for that matter Iraq/Kuwait, thus the need for the Median Line. The Telegraph map shows that the operation took place within the boundaries of Iraqs 12 mile water line (demarcating the start of international waters).

    Irans Terrritororial waters extend south east within the confines of the median line