"All that the best Satellite Navigation system can do is identify a physical location of an event. The question of its political location - whether it is in Iraqi waters or "Iranian waters" - is another matter entirely."

Exactly, McGrath. I know I posted this before but I think its important to listen to what the Iraqi Commander said and to take the fisherman's story seriously. They are the people most familiar with territorial traditions. The locals are sure to have a better understanding of the situation than anyone else.

Of course teribus would have us believe that the superiority of the Royal Navy should never be questioned.

"The Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters cast doubt on claims the Britons were in Iraqi 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," Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim told AP Television News in the southern city of Basra."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070324.wiran0324/BNStory/Front

There is just too much that doesn't add up. Why were the Brits boarding a merchant vessel at sea? Was it at anchor or travelling to port? How big was this vessel? Even if it was in Iraqi waters, does this mean that the British dinghys (gunboats) did not stray into Iranian waters? What kind of games were they playing with the helicopter crew? Why were they out of contact with the Cornwall?

But most of all, why would the Iraqi commander and the Iraqi fishermen be concerned about the British being in Iranian waters?

My guess is that they knew Britain was being disrespectful and that their actions would cause an incident. The Iraqis know better than to challenge the Iranians and they were worried about the obvious transgression.

Its another case of Britain being out of its league.