On the ground reportage: where's the point?

I see Michael Thurston's news story in The Australian from Tehran of Iran holding 15 British sailors. For a Journalist based on the ground in Tehran it's interesting to see that his report at no stage quotes Iranian officials about their side of the story. Makes you wonder what the point is in having him there when getting Iran's perspective was as easy as reading Iran's Press TV coverage on the web?

The Shatt al_Arab has been a disputed waterway between Iran and Iraq since before Saddam was a small boy. For the most part, since the 1975 Algiers Agreement and excluding the Iran/Iraq war, it has been a shared waterway and for good reason--it's very shallow and very narrow.

Michael's article disingenuously ignores that the inspection was of an Iranian flagged vessel most likely on the Iranian side of the Shatt (assuming of course that one can ever truly be on one side over the course of traversing the Shatt).

UN Security Council resolution 1723, which is what the British are operating under, gives them the right as afforded by the Iraqi government to inspect any and all vessels in Iraq's waterways but NOT in Iran's.

The Shatt then provides ideal opportunity for confusion about territoriality which I imagine is the reason why the Brits think they can get away with the odd--"my mistake" infraction of Iran's sovereignty in their quest to uncover a nuclear smoking gun.

Interesting also that this happens just in the lead-up to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's impending visit to New York to address the UN Security Council. One cannot help but think that the COW is looking to avoid another Chavez style outburst at the U.N. probably the reason why they delayed in getting the Iranian visas processed in time as well as I read now that Ahmadinejad has canceled his visit.