Press TV Claims Iran Took ‘Physical Action’ Against South Korean Vessel on May 6
The HMM NAMU ((Photo provided by HMM)
As the Iranian government denied allegations that its military was involved in the explosion and fire aboard the HMM Namu, an Iranian state-run media outlet put forward a claim suggesting that there had been “physical action” against a South Korean vessel.
Press TV, Iran’s state-run English-language outlet, said in a “Strategic Analysis Desk” column on May 6 local time that “Iran’s targeting of a South Korean ship that violated newly defined maritime rules is a clear signal that Iran will defend its sovereignty with physical action.”
The column did not specify the name of the vessel in question. However, given the timing and substance of the report, it is understood to refer to the HMM Namu, which suffered explosion and fire damage in Gulf waters, namely the Persian Gulf.
The issue is that this claim differs in tone from the Iranian Embassy in Seoul’s official position. In a statement released the same day, the embassy said, “The Iranian Embassy firmly rejects and categorically denies all allegations that the Iranian military was involved in the incident related to the damage sustained by a South Korean vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.”
While denying the Iranian military’s involvement, the embassy also offered an explanation that appeared to place responsibility for the accident on the vessel’s side. The embassy said, “It is self-evident that unintended incidents may occur if announced requirements and operational realities are ignored in an environment affected by military and security tensions,” adding, “Responsibility for such consequences lies with the parties that navigated or operated in the relevant waters while disregarding these considerations.”
This is understood to draw a line against allegations that the Iranian military directly attacked the HMM Namu, while at the same time raising the possibility that the vessel may not have complied with Iranian demands related to navigation. At the same time, the remarks can also be read as leaving open the possibility that a physical response or accident occurred amid heightened tensions.
The Press TV column also linked the suspension of the U.S. “Project Freedom” to Iran’s response. The column argued that the United States abandoned the plan after two days not out of goodwill, but because of Iran’s asymmetric military deterrence and calculated response.
It also justified the attack on the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that Iran resumed on May 4. The column claimed, “The stern final ultimatum delivered to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) finally shattered all illusions that the war would remain confined to international waters.”
It went on to say, “The expansion of the definition of the Strait of Hormuz to include the entirety of UAE territorial waters, and in particular the designation of Fujairah Port within the strait’s operational boundary, was a strategic redefinition and a ‘masterstroke.’”
This appears to refer to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran setting a new scope of control that includes UAE territorial waters. The column said, “For the United States and its allies, this came as an unexpected shock,” adding, “Fujairah Port, in the Gulf of Oman beyond the Hormuz chokepoint, had long been seen as a secure rear base, but now that strategic role has been completely transformed.”
Jung Suk-yee
댓글
0