What is the explaination for the Royal Navy's failure ?

There's a point not getting much attention right now, and its this:

We know the Iranian's are willing to concentrate force to capture British military personnel by crossing into Iraq. They have done this before.

Then why were they allowed to gain the upper hand ? (Was it an intelligence failure or is it that we are too weak to protect our own forces ?)

Do we have adequate forces for the capability and aggressive nature of the Iranian forces ?

Why could HMS Cornwell not support its boarding party ?

Why was no air support used ? Was it not available ?

What changes are begin made to prevent this occurring again ?

MiaS suspects that the failure of Gordon Brown to adequately fund the Royal Navy is part of this national humiliation and failure to protect our service personnel.

How much danger our the Royal Navy in from a preemptive attack on their ship with Iranian missiles ?

And finally - why aren't these questions being asked in the MSM - especially the BBC ?


Update: The BBC now have Former Royal Navy chief Admiral Sir Alan West answering some questions on this. The answer below is in the area I'm asking about.

extract ---

What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?

The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.

If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

--end extract

Yes - it is clearly wrong - hence suggesting the Navy has failed.