MADRID – The islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu (Bu) Musa, strategically located in the Strait of Hormuz, are far more than simple stretches of land surrounded by water: they represent the intersection of history, sovereignty, and regional geopolitics. 

Their significance goes beyond territorial concerns, extending into the very heart of Persian Gulf security—a space where geography dictates strategy and history shapes international relations. Today, these islands symbolize Iran’s capacity to project influence, consolidate sovereignty, and maintain stability in a global landscape marked by energy interests, strategic maritime routes, and regional tensions.

The recent joint statement by the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the European Union (EU) concerning these islands has reignited a debate that has never truly subsided. This is not merely a territorial dispute; it is a confrontation between historical and political narratives seeking to define which claims to sovereignty are legitimate and which are not.

In this context, Iran’s position on the islands is clearly expressed in the statements of Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, posted on the social media platform X: “We strongly condemn the interventionist and unfounded claims expressed in the joint GCC-EU statement, including the repetition of the absurd allegation regarding the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa, which have always been Iranian. Iran’s territorial integrity has been sealed and consolidated with the blood of hundreds of thousands of brave young people from this land, and the Iranian nation will not yield to any illusory claimant.” 

These words underscore the deep connection between sovereignty, historical memory, and national defense that permeates the Iranian narrative on these islands, illustrating how territorial claims intertwine with national identity and sacrifice.

A history of continuity and resistance

To understand the present relevance of this dispute, one must look back centuries. For millennia, the Persian Gulf was the stage for successive empires that recognized the strategic importance of controlling islands and maritime routes. Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa were integral to the Persian political sphere, administered and defended both from the mainland and through military presence and navigational control. History demonstrates that sovereignty over these islands is not an abstraction but a continuous exercise of authority combining administration, defense, and maritime governance.

The nineteenth century brought new tensions. British colonial expansion transformed the Persian Gulf into a strategic chessboard: London established protectorates, supported local leaders, and sought to consolidate its influence against other European powers and the declining Ottoman Empire. Yet Iran maintained effective control over these islands, supported by international treaties recognizing their sovereignty. Iranian authority, though challenged, was never significantly interrupted, and the administration of the islands remained continuous.

The decolonization process of the twentieth century and the formation of modern states in the Arabian Peninsula introduced new actors into the region. The establishment of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 1971 brought forward claims over the islands based on geographic proximity and previous colonial agreements. Nevertheless, Iran reaffirmed its historical and legal control over Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa through political, diplomatic, and military action. This historical continuity makes the dispute more than a territorial conflict: it is a confrontation between differing conceptions of legitimacy and sovereignty

Modern international law defines sovereignty not merely as an abstract right but as the capacity to exercise effective control over a territory. In the case of the three islands, Iran has maintained uninterrupted administrative, civil, and military authority. State presence is reflected in public infrastructure, regulation of navigation, and resource management, elements that reinforce Iranian authority and legitimize its sovereignty against external claims.

Any narrative framing the situation as an “occupation” ignores both the historical continuity and the tangible exercise of Iranian power. Sovereignty, beyond a legal title, is an active process combining recognition, authority, and resistance against those attempting to reinterpret history to suit political agendas. From this perspective, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa are not merely territories; they are symbolic and material extensions of Iranian national identity.

A complex geopolitical arena

The contemporary dispute cannot be understood without considering regional and global tensions. The UAE bases its claims on historical and tribal arguments, defending what it considers legitimate rights grounded in geographic proximity and prior agreements. Iran, however, deems these arguments insufficient to alter an established control and warns that undermining sovereignty over these islands could destabilize the entire region.

The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, often representing regional interests and occasionally external actors, has issued resolutions questioning Iranian sovereignty, proposing multilateral negotiations. Yet these initiatives frequently overlook Iran’s legal and administrative history regarding the islands, prompting Iranian rejection and hardened positions. The resulting political and diplomatic pendulum reflects not only a territorial conflict but also a competition for regional hegemony, control over strategic routes, and influence over the global energy flow.

The strategic value of the islands lies not in their size but in their location. Positioned at the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz, they control the passage of nearly a third of global oil shipments, making them critical for global energy stability. Controlling these islands allows for both direct influence over navigation and the projection of symbolic and real presence that strengthens Iran’s regional position.

From this perspective, Iranian sovereignty carries significance beyond military terms: it represents a declaration of strategic autonomy and deterrence capability vis-à-vis external powers. The islands thus act as a mirror of Iranian power, symbolizing geopolitical influence and the ability to project it regionally.

Ensuring regional stability requires realistic acknowledgment of effective sovereignty. Accepting Iran’s rightful authority over the islands does not imply submission in diplomacy but recognizes a political and legal fact underpinning order in a sensitive and conflict-prone region. Sustainable solutions must rely on respect for international law and historical memory rather than partial interests that may exacerbate tensions and provoke broader conflicts.

International diplomacy, therefore, plays a crucial role in safeguarding an environment where sovereignties are recognized and where dialogue mechanisms are grounded in facts, history, and legality rather than selective geopolitical pressures.

Sovereignty over Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa is not merely a legal or military issue; it is an affirmation of identity. For Iran, these islands represent historical continuity, collective memory, and territorial belonging. Denying this sovereignty amounts to challenging the political and symbolic integrity of the nation.

As Iranian official narratives emphasize, defending these islands has required tremendous sacrifices throughout history. The blood of generations of young people who defended territorial integrity renders sovereignty a political and emotional bond connecting past, present, and future.

Protecting sovereignty is therefore not just a territorial defense act: it ensures that history and national identity continue to project into an increasingly complex present, in a Persian Gulf marked by rivalries, external interventions, and energy disputes. Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa are thus a meeting point of history, politics, and strategy, where sovereignty manifests as an exercise of power, memory, and resistance.