Whenever Iran is mentioned in the news, it's a pretty safe to bet that whatever the story is, readers are going to shake their heads and grumble about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying something politically inflammatory, how they are discreetly butting into Iraq's increasingly chaotic political situation or how their nuclear program will soon pose a threat to American interests. There goes Iran again, rousing up trouble in an already troubled area of the world.

Iran's latest appearance on the stage of global politics comes in the form of 15 British sailors who were captured by Iranian naval units on March 23. The sailors were part of a UN force that patrols smuggling activity, and at the time of their capture they were in Shatt al-Arab, a tiny and strategically located waterway that has been hotly disputed territory between Iraq and Iran for decades.

Iranian officials say the soldiers were in Iranian territory while British authorities insist they were on the Iraqi side. Video footage released by Iran and broadcast on TV appears to show the sailors safe and unharmed, and negotiations between Iranian and British diplomats appears to be approaching a tentative resolution to the situation. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said, "Our priority is to solve the problem through diplomatic channels. We are not interested in having this issue get further complicated."

In the media, Iran's actions have predictably been portrayed as aggressive and unnecessary, and while it is not excusable for Iran to have captured these soldiers, a deep level of sensitivity needs to accompany any diplomatic or military ventures into that territory. Iran is not Iraq, and although British officials say they did not intentionally trespass, if the British and American militaries want to wage war in Iraq, they had better contain it to Iraq's borders.

According to Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries from King's College London, Iran and Iraq have always disputed over territorial waters. Truth be told, Iran and Iraq have never really agreed on anything, let alone a small strip of water. The two countries fought a long, violent war from 1980-88 over border disagreements, and Shatt al-Arab was at the very heart of the dispute that led to the war. The estimates for casualties from this war number between 1-2 million. These horrifying numbers indicate that border disputes in the area are worth millions of lives.

Anyone who dares to venture into those areas needs to be aware of the history and proceed with the appropriate caution. If American and British forces have not learned this from history, then the latest unfortunate incident with the captured soldiers shows that they will have to learn it by direct confrontation.

For third-party countries to jut into points of contention between Iraq and Iran, whether they are political or geographical, often serves to exacerbate tensions that have existed for decades. Americans and the British need to be especially careful; Iranians have not forgotten that Americans and the British supported a corrupt and dictatorial Shah over a people's government that attempted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry in the 1950s.

At some point in the future, the war in Iraq will become something of the past, and Iran will continue to be Iraq's neighbor. If the Americans and the British want to foster a stable and cooperative relationship between the two countries, more diplomacy needs to replace confrontation and political insults hurled by heads of state.

Reach columnist Hanady Kader at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.