Growing tensions around U.S. policy toward Iran have once again highlighted a familiar reality in international politics: even close allies do not always move in lockstep. In the case of the proposed “Operation Epic Fury,” efforts by Donald Trump to build a broader coalition have so far met with visible hesitation.
Across Europe, responses have ranged from cautious distance to clear refusal. The United Kingdom—long considered one of Washington’s most reliable partners—has firmly ruled out participation in any expanded military action. Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized that Britain would not be drawn into a wider conflict, while still signaling openness to diplomatic engagement.
“Britain won’t be drawn into the wider war,” Starmer said, adding that NATO involvement “won’t be, and it’s never been envisioned to be, a NATO mission.”
Other major European nations have echoed similar positions. Italy has made clear that military involvement is not under consideration, while Germany has gone further in rejecting any role in potential intervention. Chancellor Friedrich Merz underscored that no joint decision had ever been made regarding participation.
“There was never a joint decision on whether to intervene… We will not do so,” Merz stated.
At the same time, German officials have raised broader strategic concerns. Defence Minister Boris Pistorius questioned both the necessity and effectiveness of the proposed approach, suggesting that large-scale military action may not resolve underlying issues.
“This is not our war… What does Donald Trump expect from a handful of European frigates… that the mighty US navy cannot manage alone?”
Elsewhere in Europe, countries such as Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia, and Greece have expressed uncertainty or declined involvement altogether. Their concerns often center on the mission’s objectives and the potential risks of escalation, particularly in sensitive areas like the Strait of Hormuz.
The pattern extends beyond Europe. Countries including Australia, South Korea, and Japan have also stopped short of committing military support. While some have left the door open to continued dialogue, none have indicated immediate participation.
Australia’s position was stated in direct terms by Transport Minister Catherine King:
“We won’t be sending a ship to the strait of Hormuz… that’s not something we’re contributing to.”
Meanwhile, China remains an uncertain factor. Although no formal commitment has been made, U.S. officials have suggested Beijing could play a stabilizing role, particularly given its reliance on energy routes through the region.
In contrast to the general reluctance, Ukraine has signaled a willingness to assist, despite its ongoing conflict with Russia. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated that support could be offered in specific areas, such as countering drone threats.
“Whenever it is possible for us to help… we sent our teams,” Zelenskyy said.
The broader picture suggests a notable gap between U.S. expectations and allied responses. While Washington may seek collective action, many partners appear wary of being drawn into a potentially wider conflict, particularly one without clearly defined limits or objectives.
Trump has acknowledged this hesitation, hinting that the reactions of allies are being carefully noted.
“Whether we get support or not… we will remember,” he said.
At this stage, the situation remains fluid. Whether additional countries will shift their positions—or whether the operation will proceed largely without allied backing—continues to be an open question shaped by diplomacy, regional stability concerns, and domestic political calculations within each country.
