Of course there is. However a high-up Brit admiral (IIRC) stated in at least one publication that the ROE regarding Iran were to avoid escalation.
I've also read these ROE are actually UN ROE that Britain has accepted. The responsibility for the ROE it imposes is Britains of course regardless of where they originated, but I'm thinking Britain is mostly trying to avoid being the cause or being accused of being the cause of an international conflict through provocation.
The same rules don't apply to Iran, obviously...
Yes, I can totally understand that anyone in a position of power would generally want to avoid being seen as the ‘escalator’ of conflict, even when that’s what the goal is....
I believe that an escalation is sought after, but to make it more acceptable with the ‘middle of the road’ crowd back in the UK, the Iranians have to be the ones instigating the escalation.
I’m a 17yr serving soldier, an SNCO, and in my experience the ROE can be ‘mis-translated’. They’re not as black & white as people may think. As a junior rank, all you’ll be told in a mission brief are things like ‘shoot on sight’, ‘avoid contact at all costs’, in a nutshell, where to point your weapon and for how long, and also at what time to shoot and who to shoot, and what to do if it is quite specific that you do not shoot.
I remember an exercise I went on when I was young and green, where it seemed blatantly obvious that we were being used as spare parts firing at shadows. When I asked the screw what that had all been about, he said - after a certain amount of abuse for being so indignant as to ask the question - “Son, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die!!!”
I suppose who gets the blame for this all lies with whether it is provbed the RN ships entered Iranian waters or not, and yes, the same rules don’t apply to Iran...