CounterPunch+ Exclusives

CounterPunch+ Exclusives

The Middle Power Dilemma: Europe, the U.S. and the Iran War

The bombardment of Iran exposed a central dilemma for Europe’s middle powers: condemn Tehran, yet resist joining a U.S.–Israeli offensive that violates international law. Though they reject Tehran’s human-rights abuses and support for terrorism, the U.K., France, Germany, and Spain hesitated to aid or condone the bombing. As the saying goes: “The strong use force; the weak rely on law.” What, then, were they to do? Iran’s escalatory retaliation — striking neighboring states and military bases — shifted the equation, pushing some governments toward limited support for Washington and Israel.

The bombing of Iran is unlawful. In an address to the French nation, President Macron clearly said that the attacks were “outside the framework of international law.” Under the U.N. Charter, to which the United States is a party, attacking another country can only be done in self-defense when a country is under imminent threat or with the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Neither condition was met: there was no imminent threat and no Security Council authorization.

European middle powers are drifting strategically away from Washington amid recent tariff disputes. Uncertainty over U.S. commitment to NATO’s collective defense — particularly regarding Article 5 — has further pushed Europe to reconsider its reliance on American security guarantees. Washington’s hesitation to provide consistent support for Ukraine has further weakened transatlantic securitycohesion as well as Trump’s threats to annex Greenland.

Middle Powers’ Responses

The leaders of three of the middle powers, the U.K., France, and Germany, issued a joint European statement on February 28:

We call on Iran to stop these reckless attacks immediately. We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source. We have agreed to work together with the United States and our allies in the region on this matter.

We call on Iran to stop these reckless attacks immediately. We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source. We have agreed to work together with the United States and our allies in the region on this matter.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer put it best when he emphasized defensive cooperation, refusing participation in offensive strikes.  To Starmer, the U.S.–Israeli strikes were offensive. Therefore, Starmer would not allow the U.S. to use British bases for attacking Iran. Once Iran expanded its retaliation, including a drone strike on the British Royal Air Force base at Akrotiri on Cyprus, Britain’s position shifted, from refusing offensive support to enabling defensive cooperation.

Starmer described the shift as follows: “This decision is about safeguarding our national security and fulfilling our obligations to our allies.”

Trump said he was “very disappointed” in Starmer for initially refusing to allow American forces to use British military bases, such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, to launch strikes on Iranian targets. He told The Telegraph that the delay in granting permission “took far too long” and was unlike anything seen before in the U.S.–UK relationship.

At the joint press conference/interview with Donald Trump and German Chancellor Merz in Washington on March 3, 2026, Trump criticized Starmer for the U.K.’s initial refusal to let the United States use British military bases for the first wave of airstrikes against Iran.  “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump mockingly said of the current British prime minister.

French President Emmanuel Macron took a similar line to Starmer: supporting collective self-defense and allied protection, but avoiding offensive action. Unlike Britain, France has not opened its bases for operations against Iran.

Macron stressed diplomatic channels over unilateral actions. “France was neither informed nor involved,” he said about the strikes. “We must increase our efforts to resolve the issue through diplomatic channels.” Macron called for an urgent meeting of the U.N. Security Council when the bombings started.

Germany framed its response more in strategic than legal terms. Berlin backed efforts to curb Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities while stressing transatlantic unity and stability.

 “Questions of international law will not be the primary driver of Germany’s response. Our priority is strategic stability and the security of our partners,” declared Chancellor Merz.

Trump praised Merz and Germany at their recent meeting. “They’re letting us land in certain areas, and we appreciate it, and they’re just making it comfortable. We’re not asking them to put boots on the ground,” Trump said.

German officials clarified that this does not mean Germany has authorized offensive operations against Iran from German territory or bases. Any actual German involvement in strikes would require parliamentary approval.

Spain’s center-left government adopted the most restrictive legalist stance. Madrid condemned the strikes as “unilateral military action” and refused U.S. use of the Rota and Morón bases for operations against Iran. Officials stressed that base access must comply with existing agreements and international law. Following that decision, at least 15 U.S. aircraft — mostly aerial refuelers — departed Spanish territory. Spanish leaders repeatedly invoked the U.N. Charter and rejected participation in offensive operations lacking international backing.

Referring to Spain’s refusal to allow U.S. military use of its bases, Trump said: “Spain has been terrible … we’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”

No European consensus

The Iran bombardment revealed the structural dilemma of European middle powers: balancing alliance solidarity with legal legitimacy and political restraint. The U.K., France, Germany, and Spain each navigated this tension differently. The U.K. will be sending a defense destroyer and helicopters to Cyprus. France sent Rafale aircraft and a frigate to the region as well as deploying the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean Sea. German forces in the region would only act defensively to protect German troops if attacked directly. All three countries are acting in the name of defense and protecting national interests in the region. None claim to be participating offensively.

In a world where great-power conflict increasingly challenges international norms, middle powers must reconcile security dependence with the defense of the legal order they rely upon. They cannot abandon the law — yet they cannot afford to ignore power and the United States, above all, to help support Ukraine.

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.

In Search of Liberation: From Leonard Peltier to Nick Tilsen

Huckabee’s Dangerous Delusions About Israel and the Middle East

The Veil, the State, and the Illusion of Liberation

QAnon is Dead. Long Live QAnon!

Tells the Facts and Names the Names

Copyright © CounterPunch

counterpunch@counterpunch.org

Administrative Director

Director of E-commerce and Sales

counterpunchbiz@gmail.com

Jeffrey St. Clair, Editorial Director

Joshua Frank, Managing Editorial Director

Nathaniel St. Clair, Associate Editorial Director

Alexander Cockburn, 1941—2012

Nichole Stephens, Administrative Assistant

© CounterPunch