Why would a military vessel be 1.7 miles away from the border of a country they are not getting along with?

Question

Explain to me what's going on. Something tells me a British warship would have fought back if they were in Iraqiand not Iranian waters.
Feel free to school me. I don't know everything. Got some knowledge...lay it on me.

Is anyone actually going to answer my question????

Answer 1

The waters are disputed. that means that Iran says even if they were 1.7 miles from the border but it isn't the same border that the Brits recognize. No country recognizes Sealand but the still think they are country. Same concept.

Answer 2

Before you go posting false information, check the facts.
They were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters according to the gps that has been certified by Brittan, France, and the US. Even the first gps location given by Iran showed that the boat was in Iraq water. When it was shown they were wrong in the arrest, Iran suddenly corected their gps position. Even if the ship had somehow strayed into Iranian waters, under international law, warships have sovereign immunity in the territorial sea of other states. The only thing Iran allwoed to do if they think other coutries boats were breaking the rules is to require the ship to leave their territorial waters immediately.
Bush had nothing to do with it.

Answer 3

The british are engaged in electronic warfare against the iranians, probing testing identifying iranian defenses for a possible attack. Why didn't the british fight back? The Iranians would have blew them out of the water!

Answer 4

It would've definitely been provocative to fight back to the Iranaian ships, so I'm inclined to see the fact that they allowed their capture as proof that they were in some disputed area that both Iraq and Iran claim and didn't feel they were violating any laws (which they may not have been). Obviously they're there because of the UK's military action in Iraq, and it was probably just a mistake that is being exploited by the Iranian government in the face of sanctions.

Answer 5

As close as they were to land, it's not unheard of for that type of stuff to have happened as much as it has in the past, and now. Iran is trying to flex muscle to the US, and to the Security Council, as a way of saying that they are competitors, when they are just as impotent as Saddam was.

Okay. I take that back. Not as impotent as Saddam, but certainly incapable of fighting a sustained and organized conventional war with any of the Security Council powers.

It's posturing to make themselves look big and bad. Machoism at its most pathetic. But, then again, they are friends with Venezuela and claiming to be neutral. Last I heard, Switzerland didn't posture like these fools.

Answer 6

Because the British are looking for "trouble"- so that the politicians can "sell" their policy of Iranian "insurgency"- at home. It's kinda like what we're doing now in the Persian Gulf with our military "exercises"... We're "daring" the Iranians to take a "pot-shot" at us...

Answer 7

It wasn't a british warship, it was a contingent of sailors and marines who went to inspect a ship. As for them being in Iraqi waters, I think I'm gonna believe a country that ruled the freakin' waves for four centuries over a country who is barely above crapping in coffee cans.

Answer 8

They wouldn't fight back because that would have escalated into a war. The ship was there because they thought that the water was controlled by Iraq, which Iraq does claim to own.

Answer 9

It's more intimidating to the country if the ships are within firing range.

Answer 10

check map of the area, nuff said.