According to Thai Enquirer, Thailand lodged a protest with Iran after an attack on a Thai cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Thailand seeks an apology from Iran after the incident, yet from yesterday until now, Iran has given no response regardless of Thailand’s protest.
Responding to questions about why the Thai vessel travelled through the strait despite Iran’s warnings of potential attacks, Anutin said it remained unclear how maritime navigation decisions were made and whether the route was considered international waters.
Anutin’s response is fair enough, balancing the need to avoid provoking Iran while also avoiding placing blame on Iran. In this regard, if he answered “it was definitely international waters,” he would be directly challenging Iran’s sovereignty claims. If he answered “it was Iranian territory,” it would make the ship appear to have ignored a clear warning and the blame would be on that Thai major company. Therefore, leaving it “unclear” keeps the diplomatic door open.
Moreover, by stating that it is “unclear how maritime navigation decisions were made,” Anutin effectively distances the government from the ship's captain and the private company owning the vessel. This strategy allows the government to maintain a “wait-and-see” approach rather than putting itself in hot water by immediately defending or criticizing the decision.
Anutin’s statement is a textbook example of cautious diplomacy. When facing Iran, Thailand avoids accusations, keeps the facts “unclear,” distances itself from the ship’s decision, and leaves the door open for dialogue. In other words, when the stakes are real, the language suddenly becomes careful, balanced, and humble.