I write this “perhaps” with the full weight of years of journalism and memory, it is unnecessary to repeatedly speak of something whose roots are firmly in the soil of this land. Yet the world, it seems, sometimes forgets. I recall my time as head of the representative office among fellow believers, discussing a simple matter with colleagues, when one of them sighed and said, Again the islands”? In that moment, I realized that this fatigue from repetition is not ours alone; it belongs to all who witness the truth being obscured by political dust.
This piece, grounded in the strict principles of international law, historical documents, and the United Nations Charter, examines the repeated claims by the Gulf Cooperation Council regarding the three islands and the Arash field. Though the narrative’s pace may shift from page to page, the truth remains constant — steadfast, like the expanse of Iran.
- Fundamental Principle of Territorial Sovereignty under Established International Law
According to the principle of the territorial integrity of states (Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter), any threat to or denial of a state’s territorial sovereignty is prohibited. This must be stated firmly, as international law allows no room for ambiguity.
The islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa have been under continuous and effective Iranian sovereignty for over a century and a half — the definitive customary criterion for establishing territorial ownership. This forms the cornerstone of the case.
- Historical and Legal Documents Confirming Iran’s Uninterrupted Sovereignty
Among official British maps (1906–1935) and correspondence from the British Foreign Office, there is evidence beyond mere lines and text — an implicit, unintended acknowledgment. Reports from the British Indian Navy further reinforce this.
It is important to note that, under international law, a colonial-era document against its issuer carries significant weight; this well-recognized principle has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice in multiple cases.
- Reference to the 1971 Agreement and the Absence of Legal Claims at the UAE’s Independence
In 1971, at the founding of the United Arab Emirates, no immediate or formal objection to Iran’s sovereignty was recorded. According to ICJ practice, such silence is interpreted as the abandonment of any claim. - GCC’s Violation of the Principle of Non-Intervention
The council’s calls to halt Iranian construction or limit the movement of Iranian officials clearly constitute prohibited interference. This principle is explicitly affirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625. Iran’s developmental, military, and administrative activities on these islands are fully within the inherent rights of a sovereign state over its territory. - No Mandatory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
According to Article 36 of the ICJ Statute, the Court’s jurisdiction depends entirely on the consent of the parties involved. Iran has consistently stated that the matter of the three islands is “non-negotiable” and falls under absolute territorial sovereignty. Consequently, any invitations or demands from the GCC or the UAE carry no legal weight. - Legal Assessment of Claims Concerning the Arash Field
The Arash field lies in an area Iran regards as a “disputed zone” between itself, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Under the equidistance principle for delimiting the continental shelf, as clarified by the ICJ, no party may take unilateral action before final boundaries are established. From this legal standpoint, the GCC’s claims conflict with both the law of the sea and the historical negotiations of the 1970s. - Legal Implications of Reiterating Baseless Political Claims
A political declaration cannot substitute for a legal document; this is evident. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing, as repeating unfounded claims does not change the truth. For over half a century, Iran has maintained formal, active, and continuous protests. While some states issued statements, Iran engaged in “sovereign acts,” which, under international law, carry far greater legal significance than words alone.
Conclusion
In the end, the truth remains firm:
The three islands and the Arash field, supported by credible historical documents, established customary law, fundamental principles of territorial sovereignty, and the robust judicial practice of the International Court of Justice, unquestionably belong to Iran. The repeated claims by the Gulf Cooperation Council are not only legally unfounded but also exceed the bounds of the United Nations Charter.
Backed by its history, legal rights, and the enduring memory of its land, Iran stands resolute and unshakable on this issue. No matter how others attempt to obscure the truth, our territory — from Tunb to Abu Musa — speaks clearly: undeniably, firmly, and without hesitation.
