What's new

Iran condemns Arab League’s ‘worthless, repetitious’ accusations

Foinikas

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 2, 2021
8,099
2
6,320
Country
Greece
Location
Greece
I beg to strongly disagree looking at the secret cults in western Europe and private militias in USA but thats the debate for another time.
therefore I see NO difference.
I am a tribal myself. if you see me in person you will dismiss me as a smelly illiterate savage towel head guy who has multiple underage wives and who hates west and Teletubbies.
I'm not saying it's something bad to belong to a tribe,not at all. I'm saying it's Arab tribal mentality that often stops them from having an effective unified army or defence,depending on the enemy of course. It can be a problem for them sometimes,especially when tribal infighting makes them forget the good of the country as a whole. Apart from that,I don't know how it is in the countries east of Iran. So I can't say about you guys.
 

The SC

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 13, 2012
30,363
21
32,728
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
I'm not saying it's something bad to belong to a tribe,not at all. I'm saying it's Arab tribal mentality that often stops them from having an effective unified army or defence,depending on the enemy of course. It can be a problem for them sometimes,especially when tribal infighting makes them forget the good of the country as a whole. Apart from that,I don't know how it is in the countries east of Iran. So I can't say about you guys.
You are probably talking about Libya and Yemen,,who are/were in civil war..2 out of 22..you should not generalize cheaply like that..
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
17,725
3
16,175
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
if the accusations were worthless then they didn't need such reaction and condemnation. its been about 4 decades or so since the Islamic revolution in Iran. the Middle Easter conquest must be stopped and try peace and coexistence and improvement of quality of life for ordinary Iranians who have faced the sanctions and blockade for such a long time.

there is even an Islamic precedence for that my dear, its called Sulah Hadabiah , I am sure the kingmakers in the Islamic revolutionary council don't consider themselves better than that?
Islamic republic even didn't add 1cm to Iran land , it was in 1971 that Iran took control of the island while it was controlled by English forces .
the island was part of Iran till 1921 British empire annexed them and in 1971 we took them from England not UAE in fact there was no UAE at all when we took the Islands

there is nothing wrong with belonging to a tribe. we are all tribal. it might have been urbanized and given a contemporary name but following a school of thought, a football club or political party has all the hallmarks of old nomadic tribes which bring horse riders in mind who are now replaced with cleanshaven Iphone wielding netizens instead of sword and bows.
there is a serious problem when we think everything member of our tribe do is just and the others have no right
 

Foinikas

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 2, 2021
8,099
2
6,320
Country
Greece
Location
Greece
You don't understand what I'm saying. Tribal mentality in modern times,as in the Barzanis and the Talabanis in Iraqi Kurdistan fighting. As tribes in eastern Syria and other parts of the Arab world taking sides with invaders or insurgents against the country's interests. Tribes being loyal to dictators etc. etc.

I don't know how to explain this to you.
 

raptor22

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 8, 2011
7,018
9
13,110
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Iranian islands (Abu Mosa, Lesser and greater Tunb) inseparable part of Iranian territory and belong to Iranian az Zirku (زرکوه which is Persian name) and Ariana islands belong to Iran next to Bahrain.

Zarkooh and Ariana island.jpg

Accused Tehran of interfering in Yemen is another joke as it's been attacked, invaded and faced genocide and blockade by its beloved Arab neighbors since 2015.
Calling for participation in the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program is per se laughable and stupid let alone for the inclusion of Iran’s conventional missile program in those talks as base on international law it's Iran right to work on its self defense as it wishes ...

Delusional at best wasting time and oxygen...would they dare to talk about isreal missile and nuclear program? NO ...

History of abu musa and the tunbs

The British Government's announcement in January 1968 of its decision of terminating Pax-Britannica in the Persian Gulf caused a sense of urgency for closer cooperation among regional states. Settlement of territorial and boundary differences thus, became a necessity, especially in the offshore areas where exploitation of new oilfields was expanding rapidly.

Iran had in 1965 negotiated with Britain for delimitation of maritime areas, which established the median line of the sea as a principle upon which the continental shelf between Iran and her Arab neighbours was to be divided. It was on the basis of this principle that the subsequent maritime delimitation agreements were achieved. In anticipation of existence of oil structures across maritime boundaries, Iran decided to enforce a provision in her continental shelf agreements with the states on the opposite side preventing inappropriate exploitation of such structures. According to this provision, which appears in all continental shelf boundary agreements, if a petroleum structure extends across the boundary and could be exploited from the other side, there should be no sub-surface well completion within 125 metres of the boundary without the mutual agreement of the two parties. The area of drilling prohibition is 500 metres with Saudi Arabia.

Ignoring United Arab Emirates' internal boundaries, the eight states littoral to the Persian Gulf need, at least, sixteen continental shelf boundaries among them. Of these only seven have been negotiated of which four are related to Iran. Two of the most complicated border issues settled in this period were those of late 1968 between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the 1971 settlement between Iran and Sharjah on Abu Musa Island. These were followed by a number of other settlements such as: continental-shelf boundary division of 1970 between Iran and Qatar; 1972 between Iran and Bahrain; 1975 between Iran and Oman and the river and inland boundary settlement between Iran and Iraq in that same year. Maritime boundaries between Iran and Kuwait, at the head of the Persian Gulf, was covered by a draft agreement between the two sides which came about in 1962, but it is not in force because of Iraq's continued territorial disputes with Iran and Kuwait. In all, maritime boundaries in two areas of the Persian Gulf have not been settled. These are the north-west areas between Iran, Kuwait, and Iraq and the area between Iran and UAE because of uncertainties concerning the two Tunbs and Abu Musa islands.

The issue of the two Tunbs and Abu Musa islands: In late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the British occupied a number of Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, either directly or through assumed sovereignty for the so-called Trucial Emirates. These included Tunbs and Abu Musa as well as Qeshm, Hengam and Sirri islands. A War Office map, presented by the British Minister in Tehran to the Shah in 1888 confirmed all these islands, as Iranian owned. Iran's case was further strengthened with the publication in 1892 of Lord Curzon's Persia and the Persian Question in which the map also showed the islands as Iranian territory.

British fear of a Russian encroachment in the Persian Gulf intensified at the turn of the twentieth century. In 1902 a secret meeting at the British Foreign Office decided that the strategic islands at or near the Strait of Hormuz should be occupied. This decision was communicated to British political administrators in India and the Persian Gulf in a memorandum dated July 14th 1902. A year later the government of India sanctioned occupation of the islands of Tunb and Abu Musa in the name of the Sheikh of Sharjah. Iran was on the brink of civil war and the authority of the central government was at its weakest. It took the Iranians about one year to realise what had happened. During his tour of southern ports and islands in April 1904, Director of Iranian Customs found out that the Iranian flag was replaced in Tunb and Abu Musa by the flag of the Sheikh of Sharjah. He lowered that flag and ordered the Iranian flag to be re-hoisted. He also commissioned two armed guards at Abu Musa. The Iranian flag was lowered again and the two sides decided to maintain status quo pending further negotiations.

Meanwhile, Iran continued struggles for the recovery of its islands as Iranian customs office wrote to the government in July 1927, demanding action against illegal trade by establishing observation posts on the three islands. A small fleet of Iranian navy was sent to recover Abu Musa and the two Tunbs and to put an end to the problem there.

The Anglo-Iranian Negociations of 1928:

When Iran prepared in 1928 to take her territorial dispute with Britain to the League of Nations, the British agreed to negotiate the status of the Tunbs, Abu Musa and Sirri islands. These negotiations began in January 1929 and continued until mid-spring 1929 without much progress. Baldwin's Conservative government was replaced in May that year by a Labour government, and Arthur Henderson replaced Chamberlain as Foreign Secretary. Henderson showed a more protective line towards Britain's colonial role in the Persian Gulf and brought Clive's negotiations with the Iranians on the issue of the Tunbs and Abu Musa to an abrupt end. This led the Iranians to try to recover the island in the 1930s through a series of actions.

Sheikh of Ras al-kheimah returns the Tunb Island: In 1934 Governor of Bandar Abbas and other Iranian officials visited Greater Tunb. This visit was the result of a secret Iranian arrangement with the Sheikh of Ras al-Kheimah according to which the Sheikh lowered his flag in Greater Tunb and the Iranian flag was hoisted instead.

Earlier, an Iranian warship in Tunb's territorial waters seized a Trucial Coast dhow. These activities attracted the attention of the British who vigorously protested against what was going on in that island. The Iranian government was also orally informed that the British Government would as a last resort protect the interests of the Trucial Sheikhs by force. They intervened at the end of this episode and reversed that development. Further Developments:

When, at the end at the end of 1948, the Iranians expressed a wish to place administrative offices on Tunb and Abu Musa, the British ignored it. In 1949 there were rumours, first that Iran was preparing to refer the case to the United Nations, later that they intended to occupy the islands by force. The Iranian government subsequently received a note from the British Embassy in Tehran reminding them of -clear attitude - of the British Government in that respect. The Iranians in return erected a Flagstaff on Lesser Tunb in August that year, which the Royal Navy promptly removed.

Iran's protests and actions for the recovery of these islands continued until the British began withdrawing from the region. The issue however, was settled through negotiations that lasted throughout the year 1971 between Iran and Britain the latter acting on behalf of its protectorate emirates. This was the outcome of about 68 years of Iranian protests and demands for the return of the islands. Unlike claims by some sources, this was not an occupation but a negotiated settlement. Otherwise the British at least should have issued a statement of protest against the signing of the MoU between Iran and their protectorate Emirate of Sharjah concerning status of Abu Musa island and against Iran's seizure of the two Tunbs.

Renewal of Claims on the islands:

Iranian authorities were reported in April 1992 to have prevented a group of non-nationals from Sharjah from entering Abu Musa. The High Council of the UAE met on May 12th to discuss the issue and agreed that commitments of each member states before 1971 were to be treated as commitments of the Union as a whole.

Again reports on 24 August indicated that Iranian authorities refused entry to Abu Musa of one hundred people of different nationalities. Iranian sources made it clear ctivities were seen in the Arab part of Abu Musa involving a number of armed individuals from other countries, including Western states. The UAE, on the other hand, without officially denying

these serious charges of breach of the 1971 MoU, accused Iran of preventing UAE nationals from entering Abu Musa demanding visas from them. Tension began to ease towards the end of 1992, but in late December, the closing statement of the 13th summit of the Arabic countries' Co-operation Council of the Persian Gulf, announced in Abu Dhabi, called on Iran to terminate "occupation" of the Tunb islands.

Some of the UAE Arguments: The following two are the main points argued by the United Arab Emirates and Iran's response to them:



1-Priority in occupation:

The first is the argument of "priority in occupation". This claim is vague and ignores the following facts:

A- Whereas the emirates appeared on the political map of the region only in 19th century, Iran was an ancient nation and was the only government in the vicinity of these islands at the time. All historical documents verify that

all islands of northern half of the Persian Gulf have always belonged to Iran.

B- Ras al-Khaimeh did not exist at the turn of 20th century, and Sharjah was not, at the time, an emirate of territorial dimension to be able to claim offshore territories. The Sheikh was a tribal chief under British protection, whose authority was to the tribal people without territorial definition. One should not ignore the fact that British pretext for taking control in the Persian Gulf was to suppress the activities of the same tribes, then referred to by them as "pirates" of no political entity, let alone territorial dimension.

C- In the nineteenth century, Iran had lease arrangements with Oman, according to which Fath Ali Shah in 1811 and Naser ad-Din Shah in 1856 granted the Sultan lease title to Bandar Abbas, Minab and southern Persian Gulf coastal areas from east to west as far as Bahrain. If all these areas belonged to Iran, the islands of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs situated in its geographical centre could not have been "unoccupied".

D- Iran's sovereignty and ownership of these islands, as well as all other offshore and inland areas of the country, were traditionally established without the display of flags of identity. Marking occupation or ownership of territory by hoisting flags was a new concept introduced to the region by European powers.

E- Nevertheless, in 1887 Iran hoisted flags in Sirri and Abu Musa to mark her ownership of these islands after dismissing the Qasemi deputy governors of Bandar Lengeh.

F- Geographical documents from Arab & Islamic historians of the post-Islamic era confirm that all islands of the Persian Gulf belonged to Iran.

G- Prime Minister Haji Mirza Aqasi's 1840s proclamation of Iran's ownership of all islands in the Persian Gulf was not challenged by any government then or at any time thereafter.

H- An official British document verifies that after the establishment of one branch of the Qasemi family at Lengeh,

the family occupied the Iranian islands, probably in the "confused period subsequent to the death of Nadir Shah". This story is an admission that Tunbs, Abu Musa and Sirri islands belonged to Iran and were illegally occupied at a time when Iran in practice was leaderless.


I- More than 25 official or semi-official British maps of 18th and 19th centuries discovered by this author confirm Iran's ownership of these islands.


J- Sir E. Beckett, legal expert of British Government at the Foreign Office (who later served as a judge at the International Court of Justice) ruled in 1932 that the Iranians possessed sovereignty over Tamb and Abu Musa in 1887-88.​
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom