Questions on the Iranian hostage crisis that must now be answered

Why were our servicemen so vulnerable?

The two British boats were well beyond visual range of their mother ship, HMS Cornwall, close to the disputed international boundary, with no helicopter support.

The Ministry of Defence claims the water was too shallow for the heavily armed frigate to follow, but was it foolhardy to send a lightly-armed boarding party so far out?

Were the British boats really in Iraqi waters - or was Iran's complaint justified?

The MoD insists the detainees were inside Iraqi waters. The Iranians say they were in Iranian waters.

But Britain has known for years that the Iranians dispute the boundary - and that they have a history of sparking disputes with arrests and seizures. Why was the Navy not more alert to the danger when operating so close to the line?

Scroll down for more ...

Why was there no warning to the boats from HMS Cornwall?

The warship boasts a powerful computerised search radar which is able to track and classify surface craft up to 30 miles away - even in busy waters - as well as electronic eavesdropping systems to monitor enemy communications.

The radar screens are monitored constantly, and should have given several minutes' warning that the Iranian fast patrol boats were converging on the boarding party.

Why did the Cornwall's Lynx helicopter do so little to help?

The Lynx flew overhead to monitor the boarding operation of a suspicious Iraqi merchant ship but returned to the frigate once the Marines and sailors were safely aboard. The MoD insists this is standard procedure as the helicopter has limited fuel.

The Iranians apparently watched closely and sprang their trap when the British boats were left alone. Given the risks, why wasn't another coalition helicopter called in to provide airborne cover and an early warning?

Why didn't the British personnel put up a fight?

The tough and experienced Royal Marines and sailors offered no resistance. Their Rules of Engagement - strict guidelines governing when they can use force - are believed to have barred them from escalating the confrontation with Iranian troops.

American commanders have voiced astonishment at their passive stance.

Why did they not try to make a run for it or fire warning shots? Why were the Rules of Engagement so restrictive? Another issue is how lightly armed the troops were. The Marines and sailors carried only assault rifles and pistols, while the Iranians had heavy calibre machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. British forces have been watching Iranian boats at close range for months - so why were they not similarly well-armed as a deterrent?

Why did the detainees co-operate with the Iranians so freely, allowing themselves to be used as pawns?

Instead of refusing to talk, modern military training now advises personnel to cooperate with captors at their discretion. But has that shift in doctrine gone too far? At times the Marines and sailors looked positively cheerful, and were pictured laughing and smiling.

Their "confessions" of trespassing into Iranian waters may have been false and given under duress, but they certainly looked convincing.

How was Iran able to turn the episode into a propaganda coup which left the Foreign Office looking humiliated?

Iran held all the cards, since it knew a military solution was all but impossible. A snap rescue mission would only have been feasible in the first few hours. After that, Britain did not even know where the 15 captives were being held - leaving officials to play the Iranians' game.

Questions were raised by Iran's willingness to flout international law and its ruthless but brilliant use of television to parade mother Faye Turney and the other captives secured a propaganda victory. It sparked comments in the U.S. about Britain's "weak" government and "cowardly" lack of military response.

Were Britain's tactics to resolve the crisis right?

Was there a failure of intelligence?

Eight Royal Marines were taken hostage in similar circumstances three years ago, and analysts have pointed out tell-tale warning signs Iran might attempt another stunt which came days before the latest arrests.

Two days before the abduction, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, discussing international pressure over his country's nuclear programme, said in an address: "If they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

An Iranian magazine used as a mouthpiece by Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards noted that "it would not be difficult to capture blond men with blue eyes wearing a military uniform".

Did MI6 or the MoD detect any heightened risk? If so, was HMS Cornwall warned?

Should women operate on the frontline in such circumstances?

Iran scored a major propaganda coup by capturing and parading a Western woman in uniform.

Women serve aboard British warships but are barred from frontline combat units across the forces, including in the Royal Marines.

Was it sensible to send a mother of a three year old child out on one of the boats so close to the Iranian border, on what was effectively a frontline combat mission?