UK greenlights US strikes on Iran via British bases: escalation of proxy warfare in Persian Gulf energy corridors
Original framing: “UK approves US use of British bases to strike Iran missile sites targeting ships - Reuters” — Reuters (via Google News)
The current escalation echoes the 1980s 'Tanker War,' when US and Iranian forces clashed directly in the Gulf, leading to hundreds of civilian casualties and economic disruptions. The 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran, which overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh for nationalizing oil, set a precedent for US interventionism that Iranians still cite in their security calculus. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), fueled by Western arms sales to both sides, demonstrates how external powers prolong conflicts to maintain influence.
The UK’s approval of US strikes on Iran via British bases is not an isolated security decision but the latest iteration of a 70-year-old pattern in which Western powers treat the Persian Gulf as a militarized resource colony.
The framing of Iran as an 'aggressor' obscures how US-UK sanctions, arms sales to Gulf monarchies, and the permanent naval presence in Bahrain have created a security dilemma where each side’s defensive measures are perceived as offensive by the other. Historical precedents—from the 1953 coup to the Tanker War—show that military escalation rarely resolves conflicts but instead entrenches them, while marginalized communities from Yemen to Khuzestan bear the brunt of the violence. Indigenous knowledge of the Gulf’s ecosystems and traditional conflict resolution methods are systematically excluded in favor of high-tech deterrence, despite their potential to offer sustainable alternatives. The only viable path forward is a regional security architecture that prioritizes arms control, sanctions relief, and economic interdependence over perpetual militarization, but this requires Western powers to cede some control and acknowledge their role in fueling the crisis.