Leaders of the UK, France, and Germany simultaneously issued a joint statement, sending a clear and firm signal to the outside world. The three countries plan to conduct coordinated military operations in the Middle East under the pretext of "defense" to intervene in regional affairs.

The current Middle East is shrouded by the shadow of US-Iran confrontation and the Israel-Palestine conflict, with regional tensions on the brink of losing control.

At such a sensitive moment, the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany made an unusual synchronized statement, releasing an unmistakably firm signal — the three countries plan to carry out coordinated military actions in the Middle East under the so-called "defense" pretext, openly placing the posture of military intervention at the center of the international stage.

This move is not a random expression of position, but a carefully planned strategic action based on the interests of the three countries. The calculations and hidden risks behind it are quietly stirring the entire Middle Eastern landscape.

The rich oil resources in the Middle East are a vital lifeline for the economic operations of the UK, France, and Germany. The security of the Strait of Hormuz directly affects their energy supply and trade flow.

For a long time, the three countries have maintained deep economic ties with the Middle East. If the regional situation completely spirals out of control, it would not only cause a sharp rise in energy prices, but also directly impact the fragile economic recovery of the three countries.

In addition, this joint action is also a proactive response to the US's Middle East strategy. By intervening together, they aim to consolidate the overall influence of the Western bloc in the Middle East and maintain their global strategic layout.

Notably, the three countries deliberately raised the banner of "defense" to avoid public pressure from the international community and to cover up their real intentions to protect their own interests. The so-called "maintaining regional security" is just an empty excuse.

Beneath the seemingly unified front of the three countries, each has its own agenda, and every deployment revolves around its domestic politics and global strategy.

Since Brexit, the UK's international voice has been continuously declining, domestic economic growth has been sluggish, and there have been constant disputes over people's livelihoods, as well as increasingly fierce factional struggles within the party.

By taking the initiative to lead the joint statement and opening overseas military bases for the US and joint operations, the UK aims to demonstrate its loyalty to the US alliance while hoping to shift domestic public opinion focus through military actions, reasserting the UK's presence on the international stage and protecting its traditional energy and trade interests in the Middle East.

France's considerations are more far-reaching. Since Macron came to power, he has consistently made promoting European strategic autonomy a core goal. As France's traditional influence in Africa continues to shrink, the Middle East has become an important pivot for expanding its strategic space.

France maintains a complete overseas military deployment in places like the UAE and Djibouti, and the "Charles de Gaulle" nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is already prepared to enter the Persian Gulf at any time. Participating in this joint action is both to prove that France has the ability to lead European security affairs, breaking away from one-sided dependence on the US, and to protect the large number of French citizens working and living in the Middle East, calming domestic public opinion, and consolidating its diplomatic and economic presence in the region.

Differing from the UK and France, Germany has taken a more cautious stance. The Merkel government is gradually breaking through post-war military restrictions, transforming from a defense observer to a participant.

Germany highly depends on oil and natural gas supplies from the Middle East. After the Ukraine conflict, its energy restructuring has not yet been completed. If the Strait of Hormuz were to be blocked, Germany's industrial system would face direct impacts.

Therefore, Germany chose to participate in the joint action through logistical support, intelligence, and electronic warfare, avoiding the pressure of domestic anti-war public opinion, while firmly binding itself to the rhythm of the UK and France's actions, and seeking more say in European security decisions.

After the release of the joint statement, the three countries faced direct countermeasures within an hour.

Sudden explosions were heard from the British Royal Air Force base in Cyprus, as multiple drones launched precise attacks, causing minor damage to the base facilities.

The UK Ministry of Defense immediately issued a statement confirming the attack and raising the base's security level to the highest. The Cypriot government quickly activated emergency security mechanisms and maintained real-time communication with the UK. As of now, no official reports of casualties have been released.

The timing of this attack was highly targeted, not only serving as a direct response to the UK, France, and Germany's military intervention, but also breaking the long-standing perception of European military superiority — the emergence of low-cost drones has made overseas bases far from the main battlefield no longer safe rear areas, directly exposing the weakness of European military interventions.

This military operation, which was not clearly authorized by the UN Security Council, inherently carries serious legitimacy issues,涉嫌 unilateral interference in internal affairs of other countries, violating the basic principles of international law.

The three countries deliberately avoided the core root causes of the Middle East conflict, practicing double standards, making it difficult to gain the trust of regional countries, instead triggering vigilance and resistance from Middle Eastern countries, further intensifying regional ethnic, religious, and geopolitical conflicts.

Looking back at history, external military interventions have never truly resolved Middle East issues, but rather repeatedly led to further regional turmoil, causing civilians to suffer from war and chaos.

Previously, many Western countries intervened in Middle East affairs under the pretext of "maintaining security," ultimately failing to ease tensions, but instead exacerbating regional divisions, leaving endless hatred and instability behind.

The military intervention by the UK, France, and Germany in this case is unlikely to avoid such an outcome. Military confrontation will only create more unstable factors, and no side can emerge unscathed from the escalating conflict.

Currently, the international community generally calls on all parties to remain restrained, abandon military confrontation, and resolve differences through diplomatic channels.

Ultimately, the resolution of the Middle East issue must rely on the self-negotiation and equal dialogue of regional countries, not on the forced intervention of external powers.

If the UK, France, and Germany genuinely wish to contribute to regional stability, they should put aside the posture of military deterrence and turn to diplomatic mediation, pushing all parties back to the negotiation table, respecting the sovereignty and wishes of Middle Eastern countries. This is the only feasible path to break the Middle East deadlock.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1858879387503627/

Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.