Weather 
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
LONDON: The United Kingdom announced Tuesday it will be deploying military assets “as part of a future defensive mission to secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”
While the move can be seen as a positive step in repairing relations with the U.S., Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s reluctance to join the U.S. in “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran has still ruffled feathers in Washington — most notably those of President Donald Trump.
Trump has dismissed Starmer as “no Churchill.” In a recent interview with Sky News, the president further complained about the lack of British alignment: “When we asked them for help, they were not there. When we needed them, they were not there… And they still aren’t there.”
TRUMP SLAMS STARMER AS ‘NOT WINSTON CHURCHILL’ FOR REFUSAL TO BACK IRAN STRIKES
Trump also took aim at the British Navy’s readiness in March, ridiculing the fleet during a White House meeting.
“We had the U.K. say that, ‘We’ll send’— this is three weeks ago — ‘we’ll send our aircraft carriers,’ which aren’t the best aircraft carriers, by the way,” Trump said, according to Sky News. “They’re toys compared to what we have.”
Two recent reports by a leading military expert and a parliamentary committee may, in part, explain why the U.K. didn’t join the war in an offensive measure.
In a report titled, “Iran War Delivers a Tough Lesson in Hard Power to the U.K.,” Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), wrote, “The outbreak of a new war in the Middle East has led to questions about the U.K.’s relevance in international affairs. Alongside debates about legality and politics, there are some hard truths about military power and the reality of the readiness of the U.K.’s armed forces.”
While the report was written with the war still raging on, Savill stated, “Pressure is growing for the deployment of more U.K. forces to the region and direct involvement in strikes, but the government will need to answer difficult questions about prioritization and the effect that it might be trying to achieve. The consequence is that as much as intent and policy drive U.K. involvement, the practical realities will constrain what the U.K. can do.”
Savill added, “On the defensive side, the U.K. has not been idle… [U.K. assets] which also appear to have included some counter-drone units – have been involved in downing Iranian drones while defending Jordan and Iraq.”
UK DEPLOYING WARSHIP, HELICOPTERS TO CYPRUS AFTER DRONE STRIKE
Savill wrote that “The challenge for the U.K. is that in the past few years, the commitments and visible presence of U.K. Armed Forces in the region have been shrinking, as a result of the pressure on the military, and a conscious decision to prioritize elsewhere, most recently in the ‘NATO First’ approach of the Strategic Defense Review of 2025.”
While the Starmer government has committed to increasing defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, experts warn that this investment may be too late to restore the U.K.’s ability to project power globally in the near term.
John Hemmings, director of the National Security Center at Henry Jackson, told Fox News, “The U.K.’s military capabilities have been systematically underfunded over the past 15 years, with the Spending Review and cuts starting in 2009 and 2010 under Prime Minister David Cameron. The Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) at the time stated that the world was headed in a much more dangerous state, but the fiscal devastation of the 2008 Financial Crisis pushed the Government into a series of cuts that were intended to be short-term. Instead, the Cameron Government sent the U.K.’s armed services into a spiral of terminal decline that has lasted until this day,” he said.
TRUMP PRAISED FOR GETTING NATO ALLIES TO BOLSTER DEFENSE SPENDING: ‘REALLY STAGGERING’
Hemmings added, “Consider the Royal Navy, the U.K.’s premier service and source of great power reach; only 25 out of 63 commissioned vessels are actual fighting ships. This force size is impossible to service Britain’s overseas responsibilities and has seen cuts of 50% in only 30 years. In 1996, there were 22 frigates, 17 submarines, 15 destroyers, and 3 aircraft carriers. Today’s First Sea Lord must attempt to carry out the same duties with seven frigates, 10 submarines, six destroyers, two aircraft carriers. In addition, the U.K. underfunded new capabilities like domestic air and missile defenses and advanced command and control systems.”
A second report released last month, by the House of Lords International Relations and Defense Committee titled: ‘Adjusting to new realities: rebalancing the U.K.-U.S. partnership,’ presents several key recommendations where it warned of the over-dependence on the U.S. “Although the U.K. has benefited from closely collaborating with the U.S. on defense, this has fostered a dependency culture leading to a decline in U.K. capabilities and loss of U.K. credibility in Washington. The Government should provide a clear and costed pathway to achieving the commitment to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP.”
While the Ministry of Defense did not respond to several requests for comment over the state of forces, Fox News Digital recently reported that the U.K. government said it is reversing an attrition rate in the military, stating that total armed forces strength stood at 182,050 personnel as of Jan. 1, 2026, including 136,960 regular troops, an increase from the previous year.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The government has also pledged what it calls the largest sustained rise in defense spending since the Cold War, with military spending set to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027, backed by an additional £5 billion (approximately $6.6 billion) this financial year and £270 billion (nearly $360 billion) in defense investment over the course of the current parliament. Britain has also said it aims to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the next parliament.
Analysts say while some in the Trump administration see the U.K.’s absence as a betrayal of the special relationship, others may say it is a tough lesson in the limitations of a mid-sized power that has tried to maintain a global footprint on a shrinking budget.
