Looks like the UK now will enjoy the same sort of relationship with Iran that the U.S. has enjoyed since 1979 . . . but does that really make the situation any worse?
Question: seeing as how British embassy grounds are considered British territory, would it have been legal for the guards to use for, deadly or otherwise, to keep the protesters out?
Nope, 'cos they’re not. Tis an urban myth- embassies are legally part of the country they are in, though they are normally treated as part if the country they are representing.
The road on which the US Consulate in Calcutta (Kolkata) is situated was renamed Ho Chi Minh Sarani, presumably by the Communist government of the state of West Bengal at the time.
In more sensible times it would have been clear Casus belli of course. In any case, the Big Satan & Little Satan are already taken, so I wonder what they’re going to call the Brits. “The Satan of Average Size”?
Apparently there were hostages taken for a while, and the Guardian, anyway, seems confident that elements of the Iranian government were behind this invasion.
ETA: I guess there’s some dispute about whether they were hostages or just told to stay put.
Others have pointed out that the embassy is not technically foreign territory, but many of the people in it would have diplomatic immunity. If such a person were to mow down a swath of the invading mob, Iran could not (legally) prosecute unless the British permitted it. The guards may not have diplomatic immunity, though.
Also, there may be circumstances where it is legal under local law to use deadly force to repel intruders without regard to the fact that an embassy is involved.