With all the bases the US has in the ME why would we need to use other countries bases? Sounds more like we are trying to secure bases for somebody else to use.

This is a massive change in direction for Cameron turning the USA down for support from the UK bases, as as you good people have said the UK has not played by UN or war rules for years, look Libya and Iraq the UK broke every rule in the book with those attacks.
However with the Iran situation the UK have seen Russia lurking in the background and over the last few months Russia has been under the sea very close to our UK Nuclear sub bases in Scotland, so they would be knocked out long before we could hit back if we hit Iran.
Russia have subs that our Radar cannot pick up, they inturn have got our sub signatures from engines, that is a big problem.
If the USA attack Iran, and I feel they wont dare, it will be a failed attack because American equipment to damage Iran wont get through Russian defenses installed in Iran, they are years ahead of America.

Give it a couple of weeks and when nobody is looking they will quetly let them do it anyway. This is Government remember, say one thing, do the opposite.

Surely not another Iran War thread.

I am suspicious that the Guardian has very little concrete evidence to back this up, so one can conclude that any approaches (if there has been such) would be fairly routine "sounding out", rather than formal. Therefore methinks this is not really a story and the Guardian is just trying to fill the empty hours with some type.

I have been trying to work out why the US would want to use of Ascension which is 5,000 miles and a continent away. I am sure that if push came to shove the US could rustle up some bases nearer to Iran.

Deep down, only the diehard war mongering arm chair types still think a war is imminent. All evidence suggests the reverse is true. Iran will be left to fall to pieces from the inside, just like their pals in Syria. Why disrupt evolution with a war?

Regards