According to Khabaronline, on the anniversary of the recapture of the three islands, historian Ashkan Zarei writes that at dawn on November 30, 1971, the Iranian military, after limited clashes with foreign forces and losing three soldiers, entered Greater and Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa, raised the tricolor flag of Iran, and fired a 21-gun salute, returning these islands to the homeland after nearly a century.
Although fifty-four years have passed, the dispute over the three islands remains unresolved, and the United Arab Emirates still claims them as part of its territory.
The recent designation of November 30 as “National Day of the Three Islands” in Iran’s official calendar offers an opportunity to reexamine the question: Is Iran, as the UAE alleges, an occupying force? Can a newly established state such as the UAE meaningfully claim historical rights?
These questions can be approached by examining the following:
• Historical background of the three islands
• Etymology
• Cartographic evidence
• Historical reports and correspondence
Historical background
According to Ahmad Eqtedari in The Persian Gulf from Antiquity to the Present, since the second millennium BCE the islands of the Persian Gulf have belonged to the realm of the Iranian empires. He cites Shilhak-Inshushinak of Elam, Cyaxares of Media, and Mithridates I of the Parthian Empire.
Eqtedari also notes on page 556 of his work: “The Persian Sea, including the island of Abu Musa, according to Clause 6 of Column 1 of the Behistun Inscription, belonged to the province of Pars, and in Sasanian times these islands were within the domain of Ardashir-Khureh, in the Pādaksyān-i-Nimrūz district.”
The history of the islands is inseparable from the broader historical, civilizational, political, and commercial domain of the Persian Gulf, which for millennia formed part of Iran’s sphere.
The Arabian Peninsula, the ancestral land of the Arabs, was politically, culturally, and economically within Iran’s sphere of influence from the time of the early Aryan rulers. Darius the Great in the Behistun Inscription lists Arabia among his tributary lands. Other inscriptions, including those of Apadana in Susa, Naqsh-e Rostam, and Ka’ba-ye Zartosht, echo this. Reliefs at Persepolis show Arab dignitaries bringing tribute to the Achaemenid king.
The cultural impact of Iran across the Gulf was so great that Abu al-Mujawir al-Dimashqi notes in al-Mustabsir that after the decline of Siraf, its people migrated to other ports, including Jeddah, which they fortified with stone and gypsum walls. Similarly, Abd al-Quddus al-Ansari, in The History of Jeddah, writes that Jeddah was built and developed by Iranians before Islam for trade.
Early Islamic geographers also reference the distinct Persian architecture of Jeddah. Muqaddasi in Ahsan al-Taqāsim describes the large number of Iranian merchants, craftsmen, and shipbuilders along the Red Sea coast.
Persian beliefs and myths also penetrated deeply into Arabia. Ibn Hisham records that Nadr ibn al-Harith recounted stories of Persian kings, Rostam, and Esfandiar to the people of Mecca.
Iran’s decisive role in Arabia reached a peak in the mid-sixth century CE, when, at the request of Sayf ibn Dhi-Yazan, Khosrow Anushirvan sent Vahriz the Daylamite with 800 soldiers to expel the Abyssinians from Yemen, adding Yemen and Bab al-Mandab to the Sasanian domain.
After the fall of the Sasanians, although Iran became part of the Islamic caliphate, chroniclers state that the Tunbs and Abu Musa, along with other Persian Gulf islands, remained under the authority of Iranian governors of Fars, Kerman, and Hormozgan, from the Saffarids through the Buyids, Ilkhanids, and Timurids. The islands were administered from Bandar Lengeh.
As Iraj Afshar notes in A View of Bushehr, the Buyids reconquered many regions and placed even the Abbasid caliphs under their authority. During their rule, the Persian Gulf and its islands, including Oman, were administered by them. Specifically, in 323 AH, Ali Imad al-Dawla seized all islands of the Persian Sea, including Abu Musa.
Roger Savory, in Iran under the Safavids, states that Shah Abbas expelled the Portuguese from the Gulf and captured Ras al-Khaimah in 1620. Nader Shah conducted four campaigns to the Persian Gulf, quelling uprisings in Bahrain and Muscat.
According to Eqtedari (p. 558 of Historical Geography of the Persian Sea), in 1149 AH, Latif Khan Dashtestani was appointed commander of all coastal regions and islands of Fars. He expelled Arab pirates from Abu Musa and other islands, and later recaptured Bahrain, sending its keys to Nader Shah.
Thus, before Islam, the entire Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula were politically, commercially, and culturally connected to Iran, and the islands remained Iranian thereafter, despite fluctuations in control.
The present dispute over the islands originates primarily in British policy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Seeking to counter Russia and protect India’s sea lines, Britain entrenched itself along Iran’s southern shores. Under the pretext of combating piracy, and exploiting Qajar weakness, Britain seized Iranian islands and raised its flag over Greater and Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa.
Britain also weakened Iran’s presence by signing separate treaties with local sheikhs. The 1853 Treaty of Perpetual Maritime Truce enabled Britain to intervene in any Gulf affair.
Nevertheless, the islands legally remained under the jurisdiction of Bandar Lengeh, whose chief was appointed by the governor of Fars. Seddid al-Saltaneh records that the sheikhs of Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah grazed their sheep on the islands only with permission from the Bandar Lengeh governor. He also notes that the Iranian flag was flown on the islands each Friday.
Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh writes that in the late nineteenth century the concession for red-soil extraction on the islands was granted by the Qasemi head of Bandar Lengeh to local merchants, and later to Haj Mo’in Bushehri.
One UAE argument claims that because the Qasemi governed Bandar Lengeh for part of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the islands belong to them. But the Qasemi were either Iranian migrants to the Arabian coast who later returned or Arab tribes that accepted Iranian sovereignty and leased Bandar Lengeh and its islands from the governor of Fars. Their administration was fully subordinate to Iran; it did not constitute an independent political entity.
Mohammad Ali Mo’add writes that the Qasemi accepted Iranian allegiance, governed Bandar Lengeh on behalf of Iran, and paid taxes accordingly.
Both Qajar and Pahlavi governments consistently rejected Arabization of the Persian Gulf or its islands. Eqtedari cites Mozaffar al-Din Shah’s directive asserting Iran’s absolute ownership of the islands and rejecting any British attempt to transfer them to local sheikhs.
In 1930, Reza Shah’s foreign minister strongly protested the raising of the British flag on Abu Musa, and in 1931 the Ministry of War condemned Britain’s actions as unfriendly and unlawful. Later, Mohammad Mossadegh and Amir Asadollah Alam repeatedly demanded the return of the islands.
Ultimately, Iran’s disputes with Britain ended through negotiations tied to the separation of Bahrain, which Iran accepted based on a political “consultation” rather than a genuine referendum, in exchange for Britain’s withdrawal from the Gulf and return of the islands.
Etymology
Tomb/Tonb is a Persian (Dari/Tangestani) term meaning hill or mound. Because the island had venomous snakes, sailors sometimes called it “Tomb-e Mar” (Snake Hill).
The numerous Persian names for the islands—Bumusa, Baba Musa, Bumusso, Gap-Sazu, Tonb-e Bozorg, Tomb-e Gap, and others—are evidence of their Iranian identity.
Iraj Afshar Sistani writes that “Bumusa” derives from “bum” meaning land or soil, and “Musa,” likely the name of a notable resident. Fereydoun Jannidi explains that “Bumuso” means “green land,” reflecting the island’s fresh water, farms, and pastures.
Historical texts also refer to “Bumow,” from “bum” and “ow” (water). Carsten Niebuhr recorded the island as “Bumof” in 1765.
The modern forms “Abu Musa” and “Tumb/Tanb” as used in the past century lack historical basis and reflect British and later Arab attempts at “Arabized identity construction.”
Cartographic evidence
British naval officer Captain Hennell in 1835 drew a boundary line parallel to the coast; it passed north of Abu Musa and Sirri, placing them within Iran’s waters. An 1888 British War Office map also colored the islands as part of Iran. Queen Victoria presented such a map to Naser al-Din Shah.
Mohammad Ali Mo’add notes a 1784 maritime map dividing the Gulf into five sections, with the fourth section (Iran’s domain) explicitly including Tunb and Abu Musa.
The French cartographer D’Anville also colored the islands as part of Iran. German mapmaker A. Petermann did the same in the late nineteenth century.
Historical reports
Two examples from Jafar Voldani (p. 96):
1. A report from Sir John Malcolm’s mission to Fath-Ali Shah in 1813 lists Abu Musa and the Tunbs among Iran’s domains in the Gulf.
2. Lord Curzon, after visiting the Gulf in 1903, wrote in Persia and the Persian Question that the Qasemi of Lengeh governed the nearby islands (Tunb, Sirri, Abu Musa) as deputies of the Iranian state.
How, then, can the UAE, a state barely half a century old and established two days after Iran’s restoration of the islands, claim ownership and call Iran an occupier?
Conclusion
Historical evidence demonstrates that Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa have always been part of Iran’s territorial sphere, though at times temporarily separated due to geopolitical constraints.
How can the UAE, with only fifty years of statehood, claim ownership? How can a country that emerged after Iran’s return to the islands deem Iran an occupier? Such confidence reflects not historical legitimacy but Iran’s own neglect of territorial integrity and national identity.
The UAE’s conduct must be understood as part of a broader effort in historical revisionism and nation-building. Contrary to assumptions of the past forty years, nationalism remains a potent global force, and Iran’s negligence in this domain has had lasting internal and external consequences. Neighboring states have, due to Iranian inattentiveness, appropriated many cultural heritage elements, traditions, and historical figures of Iran.
Your Comment