英國避免對伊朗採取 offensive role 引發批評，國防短板的問題浮上檯面

(SeaPRwire) –   倫敦：英國週二宣布將部署軍事資產「作為未來防禦任務的一部分，以確保荷姆茲 Strait of Hormuz 的自由航行」。

此舉可視為修復與美關係的一步，但凱爾·史塔默（Keir Starmer）首相 reluctance to join the U.S. in “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran 仍引起華盛頓方面的不滿，尤其是總統唐納·川普（Donald Trump）。

川普曾 dismissing Starmer as “no Churchill”。他在接受 Sky News 採訪時 further complained about the lack of British alignment：「當我們請求他們協助時，他們不在那裡；當我們需要他們時，他們也不在那裡……而他們現在還是沒來。」

川普也在今年三月針對英國海軍的戰備狀態提出批評，在白宮 meeting 上嘲笑該艦隊表現不佳。

「英國曾說『我們會派』——這是在三週前——『我們會派出我們的航空母艦』，」川普 said according to Sky News。「順便一提，這些根本不是最好的航空母艦。它們跟 ours 相比只是玩具。」

近期由一位 leading military expert 及 parliamentary committee 發布的兩份報告可能部分解釋了 why the U.K. didn’t join the war in an offensive measure。

在一篇 titled 「Iran War Delivers a Tough Lesson in Hard Power to the U.K.」的 report 中，皇家聯合服務研究所（RUSI）military sciences 主任 Matthew Savill 寫道：「中東新 war 爆發引發對英國在國際事務中 relevance 的質疑。除了 legal 和 political debate 之外，也有關於 military power 和英國 armed forces readiness 現實 hard truths。」

儘管這份報告 writing 期間 war 仍在持續，Savill stated：「region 對 more U.K. forces deployment 和 direct involvement in strikes 的 pressure 正在增加，但政府必須回答關於 prioritization 和 intended effect 的困難問題。結果是，儘管 intent 和政策驅動英國 involvement，實際現實將限制英國能做的程度。」

Savill added：「defensive side，英國並非 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。」

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。」

儘管史塔默政府已承諾在2027年前將軍費提高至 GDP 的2.5%，專家警告這項投資可能 too late to restore the U.K.’s ability to project power globally in the near term。

Henry Jackson National Security Center 主任 John Hemmings told：「過去15年，英國 military capabilities systematically underfunded，spending review 和 cuts 始於2009至2010年，當時 prime minister David Cameron。Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) 當時指出世界正走向更危險 state，但2008 financial crisis 的 fiscal devastation 迫使政府進行一連串 cuts，原本 intended as short-term。沒想到卻導致卡梅倫政府將英國 armed services 帶入 terminal decline spiral，至今仍未止歇。」

Hemmings added：「以皇家海軍為例，這是英國 premier service 和 great power reach 的來源；目前 only 25 out of 63 commissioned vessels are actual fighting ships。這樣的規模 impossible to service Britain’s overseas responsibilities，且三十年內 already cut by 50%。1996年時有22艘巡防艦、17艘 submarines、15艘 destroyers 和3艘 aircraft carriers。今日的第一海務大臣必須 attempt to carry out the same duties with seven frigates、10 submarines、six destroyers、two aircraft carriers。此外，英國 also underfunded new capabilities like domestic air and missile defenses 和 advanced command and control systems。」

另一份上月 released by House of Lords International Relations and Defense Committee，titled 「Adjusting to new realities: rebalancing the U.K.-U.S. partnership」的報告提出 several key recommendations，並警告過度依賴美國的問題：「儘管英國 benefited from closely collaborating with the U.S. on defense，這 fostered a dependency culture，leading to a decline in U.K. capabilities 和 loss of credibility in Washington。政府應 provide a clear and costed pathway to achieving the commitment to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP。」

雖然國防部未 response to several requests for comment over the state of forces，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。

政府也已 pledge 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 和 £270 billion（nearly $360 billion）in defense investment over the course of the current parliament。英國 also 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。