On March 2, British Prime Minister Starmer issued a statement in the House of Commons in London, the capital. Xinhua News Agency
On the evening of March 1, local time, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Germany issued a joint statement, sending a strong signal that the three countries may take "necessary and proportionate defensive actions" against Iran. When "defensive action" becomes an option publicly discussed by the three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, this conflict is breaking through the original boundaries and may evolve from a local confrontation into a cross-regional crisis.
Britain will not participate and Germany will not criticize
In the context of the rapidly spreading war, British Prime Minister Starmer tried to draw a clear line for his position: British military bases can be opened for "specific and limited" defense purposes, but the UK will not participate in offensive strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran. Starmer issued a video statement stressing that the UK "did not participate in the initial strike against Iran and will not participate in offensive operations now." He said bluntly: "We all remember the mistakes made by Iraq and learned from them." This statement not only appeases domestic public opinion, but also sends a signal to the international community that the UK is unwilling to repeat the mistake of military intervention. However, Starmer also announced that the United Kingdom has agreed to the use of its military bases by the United States for "specific and limited defense purposes." He explained that the United States requested the use of British bases to prevent Iran from launching missiles in the region, avoid casualties of innocent civilians, and protect the safety of British citizens and troops stationed there.
According to British disclosures, the UK has approximately 200,000 citizens in the region and has armed forces deployed in the Gulf. Iran's retaliatory strikes against targets in many countries have put British personnel and assets at real risk. Starmer pointed out that Gulf partner countries have asked the UK to increase its defense efforts, and the UK has sent fighter jets to perform missions in the region and successfully intercepted Iranian attacks.
Previously, US President Trump had listed two bases in the UK as potential operational nodes, saying they could be used to respond to "potential attacks by highly unstable and dangerous regimes." The UK has rejected similar requests in the past, but its agreement this time was seen by the outside world as a clear adjustment in its position. However, according to people familiar with the matter, the scope of the U.S. request is more limited than before, and the focus is on curbing Iran's retaliation against its Gulf allies rather than expanding the scope of the attack.
At the same time, German Chancellor Mertz refused to publicly criticize U.S. actions, emphasizing that Europe still needs U.S. support on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Trump's ally, US Republican Senator Graham, publicly criticized Britain, France and Germany for not supporting the air strikes more clearly, believing that Europe was "refusing to help the Iranian people." Under the intertwining pressures, Starmer's statement showed a typical balancing strategy: finding space between security reality and political restraint, and drawing a line between alliance obligations and avoiding involvement in war. However, as the situation continues to escalate, it is still unclear whether this line can be maintained in the long term.
EU diplomacy takes priority, NATO sends signal
While Britain, France and Germany released signals of "defensive action", the EU level also responded quickly. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Karas issued a statement saying that Brussels is following developments in Iran and the Middle East with "great concern", urging all parties to de-escalate the conflict and calling for "maximum restraint, protection of civilians, and full respect for international law." The statement also pointed out that Iran's attacks on the sovereignty of many countries in the region are "unacceptable" and warned that the Middle East faces "huge losses in a long war." In terms of wording, the EU not only emphasizes avoiding the expansion of the conflict, but also does not shy away from condemning Iran's military actions. The EU said it would continue to "protect the EU's security and interests, including through further sanctions," reiterated its diplomatic goal to "prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" and urged it to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
European Commission President von der Leyen also launched intensive diplomatic communications. She spoke with Qatar's emir (head of state) Tamim to discuss the consequences of the Iranian attack and said "Qatar can rely on strong European solidarity." Von der Leyen warned that the risk of further escalation was "real" and that Iran needed "a credible transitional phase that can restore stability and pave the way for a lasting solution," while stressing the need to curb Iran's military nuclear missile program.
At the same time, in terms of security deployment, the EU decided to send two more French ships to join the EU Red Sea escort operation, the EU Navy's "Operation Aspides", bringing the total number of participating warships to five to deal with the threat that Iran's retaliatory actions may pose to maritime traffic. Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tajani said that the EU will continue to speak out during the transition phase of the conflict and confirmed that it will continue to implement operations "Aspides" and "Attalanta" while coordinating the protection and evacuation of European citizens in the area.
Judging from its public statements, the EU's tone is restraint and diplomacy first; from an operational perspective, measures such as increasing the navy's deployment, adjusting its military strength, and coordinating the evacuation of overseas Chinese have been simultaneously advanced. The parallel calls for diplomacy and security deployment demonstrate Europe's dual-track strategy between "avoiding war" and "preparing for war."
In addition, NATO also sent a clear signal. Glinkevich, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said that he is "paying close attention" to the development of the situation in Iran and the Middle East and will adjust the deployment of troops as needed to defend against potential threats that may come from ballistic missiles or drones. NATO said it will continue to adjust its force posture to ensure the security of its 32 member countries.
At this stage, the possibility of Britain, France and Germany directly participating in the war is still lower than that of the United States, but the risk of "indirect involvement" is rising. First of all, the UK has allowed the US to use bases to carry out operations against Iran's missile capabilities. Once relevant actions trigger larger-scale retaliation, it will be difficult for the UK to completely cut off from the conflict. Secondly, the EU's military presence in the Red Sea and the Gulf continues to strengthen. If European ships or personnel are attacked, political pressure may escalate quickly. Third, NATO has begun to adjust its defense posture. Once any member state suffers a substantive attack, it is very likely that NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause will be triggered. This not only means that the alliance will initiate mutual defense obligations, but may also push NATO as a whole into a more direct military conflict, further escalating the situation.
Within Europe, there is overall caution about whether to directly participate in military operations against Iran. The historical shadow left by the Iraq War has not yet dissipated, coupled with the domestic political pressures faced by Britain, France and Germany, and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine still occupy a strategic priority, the three countries are generally unwilling to be dragged into this new battlefield in the Middle East. Therefore, the more likely path for Britain, France and Germany is to expand the scope of defensive operations, strengthen sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and provide logistical and intelligence support, rather than actively participating in a comprehensive attack on Iran's homeland. However, whether the line of "defensive support rather than offensive engagement" can be maintained in the long term will depend on two variables: the intensity of Iranian retaliation, and the duration of U.S. actions. Once either side breaks through the existing restraint framework, the probability of Britain, France and Germany being passively involved in the war will inevitably and rapidly expand.
(The author is an associate researcher at the Central and Eastern European Economic and Trade Cooperation Institute of Ningbo University)
