> I don't know the exact coordinates where international waters
> begins in the area of the incident.
Apparently no one does. But I think it's interesting (and telling) that this is not the line of reasoning that Iran is making. They aren't saying: right, that's our territory. They are saying: they weren't there, they were somewhere else. Er, I mean somewhere else than that, too (oosp). C'mon now, where's our apology?
So for all the uncertainty by all the pundits, I think we can know at least three things:
- The UK says: they were at X; and X is in Iraq - Iran says: they were at Y; and Y is in Iran - X & Y are different (in fact, there's a Z[*])
[*] http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/03/29/world/20070329_BRITAIN_GRAPHIC.html
So all this stuff about "well we don't know where the line is" is just diplomacy (and a bit of blogohhrhea); the official Iranian stance is that they were closer than 12 miles, the official UK stance is they were further than 12 miles. This is not a border dispute, this is a fact dispute. And now it's a dispute about a dispute. Also note that the UK is not disputing that Z is in Iran (though they did dispute that Y was, and apparently Iran now agrees ... sheesh).
That's pretty much all you need to know. I always think it's funny when people make up questions that could be asked but aren't being asked. In this case I presume that isn't because you're more clever than Iran is; I presume it's because Iran doesn't agree with that line of reasoning.
Now: was the photo faked? Beats me. It certainly could be a fake. If it were fake, bringing it out so quickly would be a dumb move by MoD, to be sure. If I were Iran, and the photo was faked [it's a bit like the old joke: two guys are in an elevator, one of them farts, everyone knows who did it], I'd say so straight up. But: they've said no such thing.
Also: if I were in the business of conducting interdiction in disputed waters and I used the opportunity to play high stakes poker with the Iranian Navy, I'd do a lot of things differently:
- I wouldn't bring a GPS and a camera anywhere near the boats I'm
running interdiction on - I'd make sure my crews were well trained to resist being used as
pawns in the envent of capture (compare this to the EP-3 incident with
China a few years ago) ... I mean, who believes this Seawoman is anti-war? - I wouldn't fly a helicopter directly over the ship, because a radar
trace is pretty damning evidence ... - I'd have reacted to the snatch job with measured force, because I was
expecting it ... the Royal Navy would be well within precident to have
chased after the Iranian snatch team
I think if Iran wanted to take an opportunity to show the world that these Royal Navy patrols were an incursion, they'd have done better to document the incident than to snatch these folks. And even now that they've done that, to let this drag on much longer is really a bad move, which begs the questions. But hey, sometimes people make mistakes and they snowball. Remember that awkward video of Saddam trying to kid with that little boy in 1991?
The other thing Iran hasn't said anything about is what the intruders were doing there. They just finished a boarding, so they were off for a buzz in Iranian waters for a thrill? There's no "they were spying!" or "they were stealing our fish!" or ...
So: I don't buy it.
John then says:
> I don't know why (Jordan) gives the photo any credibility.
Iran hasn't said the photo isn't credible, have they? In fact, what evidence have they advanced in all this?
But again: enough about me. I have questions. I have no answers. I have no proof whatsoever. I've detailed my suspicions. Yoshie, bless her, posted 20k of blogs from people who are just as speculative as me (and you). But her result is: Iran is almost certainly right.
Bleah.
/jordan