Explainer: What is the significance of Iran’s formal registration of Persian Gulf trio islands

By Ivan Kesic

Last week, an administrative step in Iran reverberated with significant geopolitical weight, marking the culmination of a lengthy historical and legal process.

The National Real Estate Registration Organization formally issued cadastral documents for the three strategic Persian Gulf islands – Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa – registering them under the ownership of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Earlier, the government designated the anniversary of the British withdrawal from the three Persian Gulf Trio Islands on November 9 as the National Day of the Three Persian Gulf Islands. 

Although framed domestically as a routine implementation of national land survey law, the move marks a definitive legal reaffirmation of Iranian sovereignty, intended to “end any unfounded claims” on the Persian Gulf islands.

To grasp the significance of this bureaucratic act, one must look beyond recent headlines and consider the deep historical roots, strategic motivations, and long-running diplomatic disputes that have surrounded these islands for more than a century.

What are the historical foundations of the Persian Gulf islands?

Iran’s claim on the three islands, which are an integral part of the Iranian territory, rests on a long continuum of historical ties that predates the formation of modern states in the region.

Centuries before oil reshaped Persian Gulf geopolitics, the islands fell within the administrative and commercial domains of successive Iranian dynasties.

Historical and geographical records – from Iranian and foreign sources alike – are often cited to underscore Iran’s longstanding presence and authority over the islands.

The manufactured dispute, however, can be traced directly to the era of British imperial expansion during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

As the Qajar dynasty weakened, British influence surged across the Persian Gulf as London sought to secure maritime routes to India.

During this period, the British gradually assumed control of the islands: Abu Musa came under their administration in 1904, and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs followed in 1921.

Importantly, Britain did not annex the islands. Instead, it delegated their local administration to the Sheikhs of Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah, both of whom were under British protection.

This colonial arrangement introduced the ambiguity that persists today. For decades, Iran and the United Kingdom held intermittent but inconclusive negotiations over the islands’ status.

What was the decisive turning point in 1971?

The decisive moment came in 1971 as Britain prepared its strategic withdrawal “east of Suez.”

On November 30, 1971, just two days before the United Arab Emirates was formally established, Iran moved to reassert sovereignty over the three small islands.

On Abu Musa, Iranian forces arrived under a negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Sheikh of Sharjah. The agreement affirmed Iran’s full sovereignty while allowing Sharjah to maintain a local police post and guaranteeing shared resource rights.

On the Tunbs, Iran’s action was more direct and involved a brief skirmish on Greater Tunb. Britain, effectively recognizing the new reality, did not oppose Iran’s move, a position conveyed to the concerned sheikhdoms.

The events of 1971 marked the legitimate restoration of sovereignty over territories temporarily administered by a departing colonial power, completing a process left unresolved for decades.

What is the strategic importance of the islands?

The strategic importance of the three islands to Iran cannot be overstated, and it is rooted squarely in their geography, according to historians.

Positioned in the heart of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil and a significant share of Iran’s own energy exports must transit, the islands command one of the most sensitive maritime corridors on the planet.

The bathymetry, or underwater topography, of the Persian Gulf funnels the main international shipping lanes to within only a few miles of these islands. Control over them therefore provides a unique vantage point over the most critical oil transit route in global commerce.

In a region marked by tensions, blockades, and foreign military intervention – from the “Tanker War” during the 1980s Sacred Defense to ongoing security tensions – maintaining authority over this geography is a strategic necessity for the Islamic Republic.

This calculation is further reinforced by a powerful national narrative. In the Iranian collective memory, the recovery of the islands in 1971 is regarded as a long-overdue correction of colonial-era intrusions – a symbolic victory in the broader struggle against external domination.

The event is often mentioned alongside other defining moments of territorial integrity, such as the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Azerbaijan in 1946 and the liberation of Khorramshahr from Iraqi occupation in 1982.

To Iranians, the islands embody the defense of national unity against fragmentation. As a result, any proposal to relinquish or dilute sovereignty is not only politically inconceivable but is also framed as a betrayal of a fundamental national achievement, one that could jeopardize Iran’s entire strategic posture along its vital southern maritime flank.

What is the nature of claims made by some Arab states?

Since the formation of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi has consistently asserted sovereignty over the three islands. Its position rests on arguments that historians see as implausible.

First, the UAE claims a historical Arab presence and administrative authority, primarily by the Sheikhs of Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah, and, at times, cites a broader connection to the Omani maritime sphere.

Second, it challenges the legitimacy of the 1971 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concerning Abu Musa, occasionally arguing that the agreement was concluded under pressure.

Finally, the UAE advocates resolving the issue either through direct bilateral negotiations or by referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Iran rejects all of these premises. It maintains that the Arab administration referenced by the UAE did not represent independent sovereignty but rather local governance exercised by Iranian subjects, often linked to the Iranian port of Lengheh, and later shaped by British colonial administration.

Tehran notes that the 1971 MoU was a diplomatic agreement with a local ruler, not a treaty between sovereign states, and that it acknowledged and formalized pre-existing Iranian sovereignty rather than creating it.

Iran regards its sovereignty over the islands as absolute and non-negotiable. For Tehran, submitting the issue to arbitration or an international court would itself constitute an unacceptable compromise.

Iranian officials frame the UAE’s position as a product of post-colonial Arab nationalism, one that seeks to reinterpret historical realities, drawing parallels with past Iraqi territorial claims or campaigns to rename the Persian Gulf.

What is the path forward?

The claims made by the UAE, and backed by its Arab allies, resurface regularly in statements issued by the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which backs the UAE’s position and calls for a settlement through bilateral talks or referral to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Such language is often echoed in joint communiqués with major external powers, including China and Russia, as was witnessed in recent years.

Tehran has always viewed these statements as direct challenges to its territorial integrity, prompting formal protests and the summoning of ambassadors.

Analysts say Russia and China likely adopt this phrasing out of courtesy rather than conviction, given that their broader diplomatic records repeatedly emphasize respect for Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Iran and the UAE maintain substantial trade relations, and diplomatic ties have proven resilient. Emirati leaders themselves have at times acknowledged that external powers may exploit the issue to sow division or gain leverage in the region.

A wider trend toward regional de-escalation, particularly following the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement, has introduced the possibility of a different strategic future.

In a more stable Persian Gulf environment, with diminished external military pressures and deeper regional security cooperation, the islands could theoretically evolve from fortified outposts into zones of shared economic opportunity, supporting maritime trade, energy projects, or even tourism on both shores of the Persian Gulf.

Against this backdrop, Iran’s issuance of title deeds for the islands last week carries significance far beyond administrative procedure.

It represents Tehran’s most formal effort yet to consolidate its legal and bureaucratic narrative, presenting sovereignty not as a subject of dispute, but as a settled fact grounded in national legislation, cadastral surveys, and documented state authority.

For Iran, the islands are not a negotiable question but a historical certainty and a strategic cornerstone. Now embedded into the official land registry, they are presented as an immutable element of Iranian national space.

The long journey from colonial-era ambiguity to explicit legal codification has reached its endpoint: the three islands stand as permanent, non-negotiable fixtures of the Persian Gulf’s geopolitical reality.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir