Those who ignore history are condemned to kill and die in senseless wars. I hope this post makes clear even to the militarists among us why it is stupid to talk of the 'first' or 'second' gulf wars, and why 'civilisation' has always been defined mainly by the ability of humans to kill each other in large numbers for the sole benefit of an unworthy ruling elite.

The confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that constitutes the Shatt al-Arab forms the southern border between modern day Iraq and Iran. It is interesting that in the UK we know it exclusively by it's arab name (Coast of Arabs) and not the more widely used Persian name, the Arvandrud. It has been disputed between rival empires for millenia and may just be the most politicised surviving border in history.

The key to winning a chess game is arguably controlling or threatening the centre four squares on the board. I doubt any river has washed away so much blood. Treaties have been forced upon rival dominions down that waterway since the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was fought over by, at various stages, by many of the world's greatest and bloodiest empires: the Babylonians, the Persians, the Parthians, the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Russians, the Ottomans; and now the American empire. There is a minor argument over whether the border lies on one ide of the river or the other, or straight down the middle. If these British sailors die over their misinterpretation of this then they will be far from the first.

Today we are being told there has been a British military presence there for 'almost 70 years', which is nonsense. In the 'Great Game' played out for world dominion between 19th century superpowers this waterway was yet again 'dead centre', marking the first British military presence there, long before Winston Churchill bombed Kurdish villages with poison gas. I doubt many Brits have even heard of the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57. Most Persians do, but then we Brits have so many foriegn wars of conquest to be expected to remeber them all.

The Arvandrud strategic value before the discovery of the oil fields on either side may seem hard to grasp today, but it is a defendable river that cut across East/West trade routes in the so-called 'cradle of civilisation'. Today it's value is hard to ignore, a central site on top of the 'worlds greatest natural resource', the oil fields on either bank.

As the only Iraqi route for the export of their oil the deliniation of the border has grown even more bloody as history progresses. Not being a historian, I'll stick to the main wars fought over that river in my own lifetime simply to highlight the crass cynicism of British involvement.


1975 the Arvandrud Skirmish
British support Iran against Iraq
Saddam, the former CIA hitman, over steps the mark by attacking the US regional policeman, the much feared Shah of Iran.


1980-88 the Iran-Iraq war
British support Iraq against Iran
Saddam proves more biddable than the Shahs populist and unbiddable successor, Khomenhi. One of the most ruthless wars ever.


1990-91 the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict.
British attack Iraq
After cross-border drilling by the Kuwaitis, and being given a green-light by the US to invade, Saddam thinks he has finally has the backing of the sole remaining superpower. Fool.


1991-2003 Immoral sanctions and illegal no-flyzone
British support the slaughter of both the kurds and innocent Iraqi children in their millions - perhaps the most shameful episode if the least noticed.


2003-2007 the second recent British invasion of Iraq
British attack Iraq
The British help slaughter a million so far during the occupation - simply to privatise Iraqi oil and enrich our elite.


2007 onwards
With a puppet government reinstalled in Iraq, British forces start destablising and attacking Iran in order to provoke more war and so grab more resources.



The strange thing is, most ordinary Iranians and Iraqis were always positive about British culture and at no time did their dictators we put in place ever threaten us. It seems like they are starting to learn from history too though. They don't want us there. Ordinary British civilians and squaddies don't want our troops there. There is a simple and obvious solution.

"1st The only MOD report is here : xxx
It says nothing about international waters, perhaps you can cite your source? I doubt it."

The same web page, an earlier version. Funny how some 'news sources' tend to revise ie reverse their webpages without admitting that.


"The jurisdiction comes from UNSCR 1723 & the Iraqi government."

Retrospective jurisdiction is no real jurisidiction. The UN, and 92% of the Uk population, demanded a second resolution in the face of US/Uk bullying, and it wasn't forthcoming. The only reason that that resolution was eventually passed was to 'recognise the facts on the ground' and thus hold the US/UK to international laws regarding the duties of occupying forces - the most basic of which remain unmet. Now US soldiers are immune from international law, realpolitik, but bUK forces and their commanders and cheerleaders will one day be held accountable for their part in this slaughter. I'd choose my words more carefully if I was you.


" I admire your ability to make up uncited hearsay and innuendo and pass it off as fact, this is not a NATO operation, you may find that the Aussies aren't in the north atlantic either."

And I admire your skill in distracting from illegal and immoral mass murder on behalf of your employers, but I hardly claimed the Aussies had any right ot be in the Persian Gulf.


"I think you will find the wall behind you, talk to it. "

I think you will find good history books somewhere, read them.

The Iraqi General responsible for patrolling the waters, Hakim Jassim, has just said to AP News that he has evidence the British were in Iranian waters.

“We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control, we don't know why they were there."

I suppose I am 'talking to the wall' here but it is typical and quite revealing the mass of internet and mainstream outrage this has provoked. If Argentinian marines had just been arrested while boarding Falkland Islander vessels I doubt the same consternation would have been expressed. This truly is 'an act of provocation' but it is a British not an Iranian act. It comes in the context of an escalating and transparent campaign designed to justify a war with Iran. Even if the war-mongers are correct for once, and not just lying like they just did over Iraq, and Iran is preparing WMD under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, then why would they provoke an incident prematurely ? They have no motive except to defend their territorial integrity. And yet the war-mongers motive for provocation is obvious if they believe half of what they say. Yet again we are faced with piss-poor propaganda.

Did anyone else notice that, in breach of the UN charter, this weekend the US refused to allow the Iranians to fly to the UN to attend the debate on Iran ? Why not let the accused talk in court if your case is strong ? The UN has to move from New York if it is to mean anything.

Jack Straw did apologise for the previous incident when UK marines were arrested in Iranian waters, blaming it on the marines stupidity, that is why they were instantly released without charge. I personally blame the stupidity of his cabinet members because the incursions have continued, not just into disputed waters but into territory even Saddam recognised was Iranian right up to the moment he tried to seize it. Now given this border is so volatile, maybe there is an argument to have a neutral international force policing it. Which ever countries were to contribute to that, the British should never be there for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has heard of Lord Curzon or has witnessed in their own lifetime the continuing playing the Iraqis and Iranians against each other for our gain. First the British impose a border down the middle, then they support the Shahs claims to the entire river, then they support Saddams claim to the entire river. The UN tried to mediate but was rebuffed by the British, now the UN says it isn't their concern but for the two countries involved in territorial disputes to decide. That is cowardly perhaps but it certainly isn't any concern of the British to impose an arbitary border upon countries half the world away, and there should be no UK troops there. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal even if the occupation was subsequently given UN recognition for humanitarian reasons.

If the marines were truly in Iraqi waters, then let the British now declare where they +think+ the border is, and why that opinion keeps changing, and where they think the marines were since they were bound to be properly equipped with military grade GPS. They can't and they won't, they didn't before certainly. This is pre-war propaganda, provocation and more signs of an admitted plot to destablise Iran. Shame on anyone who claims to have the British forces interests at heart while swallowing more of Tonys PR piss. This heralds a strike on Iran that would dwarf and engulf the Iraq conflict and put the British forces in Basra on the frontline of a high-intensity war.

Thanks orca, this is exteremely useful information.

Could you please combine all these separate postings into a single article and re-post it on the newswire again?

Keep up the good work.

could the mods please put back the comments hidden, orca does a superb job of both answering the direct questions and deconstructing the propaganda behind them ... the thread would make more sense then.

Thanks for a great post orca, spot on anlysis ... I dread to think that the terrible folly about to unfold has been planed for years in the hands of unstoppable men ... it seems.

Only seems though, there are still plenty of opportunities to collectively and individually protest, that and a healthy proportion of objections from various insiders. The way Iran deals with this issue could be crucial, they certainly are dertermined to avoid inflaming any situation, but can not afford to jump through american hoops the same way saddams Iraq did - a death by a thousand cuts.

I'm assuming you are an admin Mike, so I just rewrote and reposted the article. Bit long and out of context now but maybe easier to read and substantiate, I've included the relevant links I've been reading.

My first thought was to agree with Jack, things look out of context on this thread but I'm not contributing so you hide who you like, it's your site. Anyway, now I have posted the same thing twice so someone else can decide which thread to hide, that's an 'editorial' decision. Also, feel free to edit down what I've written on any post.

Myt main emotion just now is simply being appalled that so-called professional journalists could fall for this guff. Today I've seen BBC anchors press neutral witnesses if they shouldn't have 'stronger rules of engagement' and state 'this is a deliberqate act of provocation' without the slightest irony. I saw CNN report the Iraqi general stating they weren't in Iraqi waters only to cut away and ask US generals why the Iranians had strayed into 'coalition' territory. World War Three, here we come.