Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts warn-Guardian UK

[go west young man]

Source: Guardian UK

The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.
US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2169797,00.html

[HereSince1628]

1. What's the attraction of the British to these stories?

They seem to be fed even more of this through their newspapers than we are.

Is this some sort of post-imperial nostalgia looking forward to watching the US move one bridge too far so they can rationalize their previous collapse through watching us do the same sort of thing?

[Kagemusha]

2. What do you mean, watching? They have troops on the front lines of this.

They won't be watching from some perch if things go bad with Iran. That makes it relevant.

[rich1107]

3. Bushco has already

decided it wants to attack Iran. When that happens it "would force Gordon Brown to choose between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and participating in or endorsing American actions." So they have a stake doing what they can to avoid it. The quote is from later in the same article.

[Bruce McAuley]

5. So He's making sure the Brits are in it whether Brown wants it or not...

Bush wants this war, his best option is to get the Brits right in the middle of it and stage a False Flag attack on them. We won't know for years that it was a fake, and he'll be gone by then, retired down to Paraguay. The next Democratic President will have to spend all his term cleaning up the mess George has created.
Bastard.

Bruce

[bemildred]

4. Murdoch. nt

[Posteritatis]

6. Or concern for the thousands of British soldiers near the border.. (nt)