BERLIN — German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for going to war with Iran, calling the conflict a violation of international law and warning of a transatlantic rupture comparable to Germany’s break with Russia. Steinmeier’s role in German politics is largely ceremonial, but his sharp criticism of the war and the U.S. president is likely to put additional pressure on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has stopped short of other European leaders in calling the war illegal even as he has grown increasingly critical of what he sees as the lack of an exit strategy on the part of the U.S. and Israel. “This war violates international law,” said Steinmeier, who is a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which rules in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives and has been more critical of the ongoing attacks. “There is little doubt that, in any case, the justification of an imminent attack on the U.S. does not hold water,” he added. Steinmeier, speaking in front of an audience of German diplomats in Berlin, criticized Trump for withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term in office. The president, who served as Germany’s foreign minister from 2013 to 2017, had helped negotiate that deal. “This war is also — and please bear with me when I say this, as someone directly involved — a politically disastrous mistake,” said Steinmeier. “And that’s what frustrates me the most. A truly avoidable, unnecessary war, if its goal was to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Despite the president’s largely symbolic role, his strident criticism is likely to fuel a growing domestic debate over Germany’s stance on the Iran war and its relationship with the U.S. Merz and his fellow conservatives were initially far more supportive of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran than many other EU countries, arguing that Germany shares the goal of regime change in Tehran. But as the conflict has expanded and the economic and security effects on the EU’s biggest economy have become clearer, the chancellor has become far more openly critical, saying the war has raised “major questions” about Europe’s security. Steinmeier, who refrained from criticizing Israel directly, also compared the transatlantic rift during Trump’s second term to Germany’s divorce from Russia in the wake of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “Just as I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before February 24, 2022 in our relationship with Russia, so I believe there will be no going back to the way things were before January 20, 2025 in transatlantic relations,” Steinmeier said, referring to the day of Trump’s second inauguration. “The rupture is too deep.” Steinmeier then urged his country to become more independent of the U.S., both in terms of defense and technology, arguing that such autonomy is necessary to prevent Trump administration interference in his country’s domestic politics. The German military “must become the backbone of conventional defense in Europe,” he said. “In the technological sphere, our dependence on the U.S. is even greater. This makes it all the more important that we do not simply accept this situation.”

Europe’s competitiveness agenda is in full swing. Cutting red tape for business is now a central mantra of EU policymaking, Brussels is digesting new plans to accelerate Europe’s industrial capacity, and the single market is getting new political momentum as well as a rebrand. But as a new war in the Middle East adds to existing geopolitical turmoil and economic disruption, calls are growing for the EU to become more self-sufficient in areas such as tech, energy and defense. Against this backdrop, how is the EU’s competitiveness push shaping up so far? Is it moving quickly enough? Are the right policy levers being pulled? And how can European policymakers balance the push for growth without compromising priorities such as environmental protection and regulatory certainty? Follow all the discussions and news from our spring edition of POLITICO’s Competitive Europe Summit as we discuss these questions with politicians, policymakers and experts. See the full program here and follow along here from 9 a.m.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s keeping Britain out of the war in Iran — but he can’t duck the conflict’s grave economic consequences. In a sign of growing fears about the impact of the war on Britain, the prime minister chaired a rare meeting of the government’s emergency COBRA committee Monday night, joined by senior ministers and Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey. Starmer’s top finance minister, Rachel Reeves, will update the House of Commons on the economic picture Tuesday, as an already-unpopular administration worries that chaos in the Middle East is shredding plans to lower the cost of living and get the British economy growing. For Starmer’s government — headed for potentially brutal local elections in May — the crisis in the Gulf risks a nightmare combination of a rise in energy prices, interest rates, inflation and the cost of government borrowing that threatens to undermine everything he’s done since winning office. Economists are now warning that even if Donald Trump’s promise of a “complete and total resolution of hostilities” with Iran were to bear fruit, the effects on the British economy could still last for months. Already there are signs of a split within Starmer’s party over how to respond. Labour MPs want the government to think seriously about action to protect households — but Starmer and Reeves have long talked up the need for fiscal responsibility, and economics are warning that there’s little room for maneuver. Fuel prices displayed at a Shell garage in Southam, Warwickshire on March 23, 2026. | Jacob King/PA Images via Getty Images Jim O’Neill, a former Treasury minister who served as an adviser to Reeves, told POLITICO the government should “not get sucked into reacting to every external shock” and “concentrate on boosting our underlying growth trend.” WHY THE UK IS SO HARD HIT Just before the outbreak of war, there was reason for Starmer and Reeves to feel quietly optimistic about the long-stagnant British economy. The Bank of England had expected inflation to fall back sustainably toward its two percent target for the first time in five years, giving the central bank the space to carry on cutting interest rates.  With the Iran war in full flow, it was forced to rewrite those forecasts at the Monetary Policy Committee’s meeting last week — and now sees inflation at around 3.5 percent by the summer. The U.K. is a big net importer of energy and also needs constant imports of foreign capital to fund its budget and current account deficits. That’s made it one of first targets in the financial markets’ crosshairs. The government’s cost of borrowing has risen by more than half a percentage point over the last month. That threatens both the real economy and Reeves’ painstakingly-negotiated budget arithmetic. Higher inflation means higher interest rates and a higher bill for servicing the government’s debt: fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates a one-point increase in inflation would add £7.3 billion to debt servicing costs in 2026-2027 alone. The effect on businesses and home owners is also likely to be chilling. Britain’s banks are already repricing their most popular mortgages, which are tied to the two-year gilt rate. Hundreds of mortgage products were pulled in a hurry after the MPC meeting last week, something that will hit the housing market and depress Reeves’ intake from both stamp duty and capital gains. Duncan Weldon, an economist and author, said: “Even if this were to stop tomorrow, the inflation numbers and growth numbers are going to look materially worse throughout 2026. “If this continues for longer… it’s an awful lot more challenging and you end up with a much tougher budget this autumn than the government would have been hoping to unveil.” DECISION TIME The U.K.’s economic plight presents an acute political headache for Starmer, as he faces a mismatch between his own party’s expectations about the government’s ability to help people and his own scarce resources. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has promised to keep looking at different options for some form of assistance to bill-payers hit by an energy price shock. A pain point is looming in July, when a regulated cap on energy costs is due to expire and bills could jump significantly. One left-leaning Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “They [ministers] need to be treating this like a financial crisis. They need plans for multiple scenarios with clear triggers for government support.” A second MP from the 2024 intake said “it’s right that a Labour government steps in, particularly to help the most vulnerable.” Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves at the first cabinet meeting of the new year at No. 10 Downing St. on Jan. 6, 2026 in London, England. | Pool photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images This demand for action is being felt in the upper echelons of the party too, as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently argued Reeves’ fiscal rules — seen as crucial in the Treasury to reassure the markets — may need to be reconsidered if prices continue to rise and a major support package is needed.  One Labour official said there are clear disagreements with Labour over how to go about drawing up help and warned “the fiscal approach is going to be a massive dividing line at any leadership election.” The same official pointed to recent comments by former Starmer deputy — and likely leadership contender — Angela Rayner about the OBR, with Rayner accusing the watchdog of ignoring the “social benefit” of government spending. Despite the pressure, ministers have so far restricted themselves to criticizing petrol retailers for alleged profiteering, and have been flirting with new powers for markets watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority. The government said Reeves would on Tuesday set out steps to “help protect working people from unfair price rises,” including a new “anti-profiteering framework” to “root out price gouging.” But Starmer signaled strongly in an appearance before a Commons committee Monday evening that he was not about to unveil any wide-ranging bailout package, telling MPs he was “acutely aware” of what it had cost when then-Prime Minister Liz Truss launched her own universal energy price guarantee in 2022.  O’Neill backed this approach, saying: “I don’t think they should do much… They can’t afford it anyhow. The nation can’t keep shielding people from external shocks.” Weldon predicted, however, that as the May elections approach and the energy cap deadline draws nearer, the pressure will prove too much and ministers could be forced to step in. The furlough scheme rolled out during the pandemic to project jobs and Truss’s 2022 intervention helped create “the expectation that the government should be helping households,” he said. “But it’s incredibly difficult. Britain’s growth has been blown off-course an awful lot in the last 15 years by these sorts of shocks.” Geoffrey Smith, Dan Bloom, Andrew McDonald and Sam Francis contributed to this report.

HOUSTON — Oil companies and the world’s largest energy consumers face a significant challenge to rebuild global petroleum supply chains and inventories once the critical Strait of Hormuz bottleneck opens, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday. “We’ve got a lot of oil and gas now that is not flowing into the market,” Wirth said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston. “Physical supply chains don’t respond immediately, so even if the strait opens at some point, it will take time to rebuild inventories of the right grades of crude and the right types of fuel.” Wirth cautioned that Iran’s attacks on oil tankers and the broader damage of the Middle East war did greater damage to oil and gas markets than the Russia-Ukraine war. Asian nations are running low on diesel and jet fuel. The war has held up deliveries of LNG, fertilizer and other products. Part of the challenge, Wirth said, will be taking a read of the damage. It’s unclear how much production has been shut in, Wirth said, and how badly some facilities were damaged. At the same event, Energy Secretary Chris Wright reiterated to oil executives that he anticipated the global disruption to oil and gas flows would be “short-term,” but he encouraged companies to ramp up production. “Markets do what markets do,” Wright said. “Prices went up to send signals to everyone that can produce more: ‘Please, produce more.’”

President Donald Trump said Monday the United States would pause “any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure” for five days as Tehran and Washington engage in diplomatic negotiations. In a social media post, Trump wrote that the U.S. and Iran have had “very good and productive conversations” in the past two days and that the pause on strikes against energy infrastructure came as a direct result of the “in depth, detailed, and constructive conversations.” Trump added that the talks “will continue throughout the week.” The move indicates that a diplomatic off-ramp to the conflict between the U.S. and Iran could be in reach. It also followed increasing unease from the U.S.’s allies in the Middle East and Europe over the conflict continuing to spiral. Ferdinand Knapp contributed to this report. This is a breaking news story that will be updated.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Nach 35 Jahren verliert die SPD ihre Bastion Rheinland-Pfalz. Gordon Schnieder führt die CDU zum Sieg, während Alexander Schweitzer trotz persönlicher Beliebtheit dem massiven Bundestrend unterliegt. Gemeinsam mit Rasmus Buchsteiner analysiert Gordon Repinski die Schockwellen für Berlin und die Bundespolitik. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht der schleswig-holsteinische Ministerpräsident Daniel Günther (CDU) über den „Auftrag zur Beherztheit“. Günther ordnet ein, warum der Wahlsieg in Mainz kein Grund zum Ausruhen ist, sondern die Koalition in Berlin nun zwingt, die großen Sozial- und Rentenreformen durchzuziehen. Donald Trump verliert die Geduld: Angesichts der immer weiter steigenden Energiepreise in den USA hat der Präsident ein 48-Stunden-Ultimatum gestellt. Entweder das Regime gibt die Straße von Hormus frei, oder die USA bombardieren iranische Kraftwerke. Jonathan Martin berichtet aus Washington über die Frustration im Weißen Haus und warum dieses „Roulette“ für Trump zur Schicksalsfrage für die Midterm-Elections im November wird. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht der PKV: Hätten Sie’s gedacht? Vom jährlichen 15,5-Milliarden-Euro-Mehrumsatz der Privatversicherten profitiert das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. Denn neben den Haus- und Fachärzten kommen die höheren Honorare auch den zahnärztlichen Praxen zugute, dem Arzneimittelbereich oder Therapeutinnen. So stützt die PKV die medizinische Versorgung in Deutschland zugunsten aller – auch der gesetzlich Versicherten. Mehr auf pkv.de**

HOW TWO WARS ARE PULLING EUROPE AND THE US APART The EU is worried President Trump could abandon Ukraine if the bloc doesn’t support him in the Middle East. By NICHOLAS VINOCUR in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO  The biggest fear of European leaders is that Donald Trump’s war in Iran will lead him to abandon Ukraine. Governments are terrified that the U.S. president could retaliate against America’s European allies for spurning his appeals for assistance in the Middle East, primarily by cutting off what’s left of U.S. help for Kyiv, according to four EU diplomats with knowledge of their discussions. As they scramble to avoid a permanent break in the transatlantic relationship, leaders hope their offer of limited support for his action against Tehran will suffice to convince Trump to stay the course in the conflict with Russia. The war in Iran “must not divert our attention from the support we give Ukraine,” French President Emmanuel Macron said at the end of last week’s EU summit in Brussels. It’s easy to see why EU leaders are so anxious. In recent days Trump has repeatedly blasted them for failing to do more to help him unblock the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping route used by about 20 percent of the world’s oil that has effectively been closed by Iran. He has also explicitly linked continued U.S. involvement in NATO to the Middle East conflict. “NATO IS A PAPER TIGER!” he railed in a Truth Social Post over the weekend. “They complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz … COWARDS,” he concluded. “[W]e will remember.” At the same time, further deepening fears about the transatlantic alliance, Moscow offered Washington a quid pro quo under which the Kremlin would stop sharing intelligence with Iran if Washington ceased supplying Ukraine with intel about Russia, POLITICO revealed on Friday. While the U.S. declined the offer, according to two people familiar with the U.S.-Russia negotiations, the fact it was proffered in the first place points to a possible tradeoff between U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East. “There’s a crack right now emerging between, you know, Europe and the U.S., which, again, as an avid pro-American and transatlanticist, I lament,” Finnish President Alexander Stubb said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. “But it’s a reality that I have to live with. And I obviously try to salvage what I can.” MISSILES LIKE CANDIES Governments are concerned that the war in Iran is using up missiles and air defense munitions that Kyiv needs to protect itself against Russia, the four EU diplomats, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges, told POLITICO. “When you see what Trump did on Greenland, how he cut off intelligence-sharing with Ukraine on a whim, there’s always a risk [that Trump could remove U.S. support for Ukraine],” one of the diplomats said. “The concern is obviously that the Middle East is taking attention away from Ukraine,” added a second diplomat from a mid-sized EU country. “The Emiratis are shooting out Patriot [air defense missiles] like candies, whereas Ukraine desperately needs them. It can’t become an either-or situation” in which the U.S. only has enough bandwidth for one conflict and abandons Ukraine, the diplomat added. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been explicit about the risk of such a tradeoff, telling the BBC on Thursday that he had a “very bad feeling” about the impact of the Middle East war on Ukraine. He lamented the fact that as the war goes on, U.S.-led peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are being “constantly postponed” in what the Kremlin calls a “situational pause.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pictured at Moncloa Palace in Madrid, Spain on March 18, 2026. | Alberto Gardin/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Ukrainian negotiators traveled over the weekend to the U.S. for talks with Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The latter praised the talks as “constructive” in a post on X, but gave no hint of when negotiations with Russia would resume. DAMAGE CONTROL European leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, are ramping up efforts to show they support the U.S. president’s goal of freeing up the Strait of Hormuz. In a now familiar role, Rutte has been outspoken in praising Trump’s efforts. The former Dutch prime minister last week called the destruction of Iran’s military capacity by the U.S. and Israel “very important,” linking it to “European security” at a time when some EU leaders, like Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, have criticized the war as “illegal.” Macron has been more circumspect in public, but active behind the scenes. In two separate calls with Trump before last Thursday’s gathering of EU leaders, the French president assured his U.S. counterpart that France would help clear the Strait when conditions allow, according to comments from Trump himself and a third EU diplomat who was briefed on the calls. “This is about managing the man,” the diplomat said. In the early hours of Friday, Macron — who has otherwise pledged to send a naval detachment to the Strait of Hormuz after the hot phase of the war dies down — said France was pursuing the aim of freeing it up via the United Nations. In response to a question from POLITICO at the European Council on Thursday, the French leader said Paris intends to “sound out its main partners” about tabling a resolution in the Security Council on securing freedom of navigation in the vital waterway. Trump is no fan of the United Nations, but he could see an advantage to a U.N. Security Council resolution that forms the basis for a broader coalition to free up the Strait, a fourth EU diplomat said. The southern suburbs of Beirut after an Israeli airstrike on March 10, 2026. | Fadel Itani/AFP via Getty Images The U.K.’s Starmer is also doing more to help Trump in the Middle East. Following reports that Iran had fired a ballistic missile at the Diego Garcia U.S.-U.K. base in the Indian Ocean, Starmer gave the U.S. a green light to use British bases to launch strikes on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz. Previously he had only granted permission for the bases to be used for defensive strikes. Starmer was also the main organizer of a statement signed by seven EU and allied countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan) in which they expressed their “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.” Asked about the intent of this statement, which doesn’t promise any immediate material help, the third diplomat said: “It’s part of the same effort. We need to show Trump we are active in the Middle East. It’s in our interests, but also in Ukraine’s.” Such pledges remain vague for now. Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have both asserted they have no intention of being drawn into the war in Iran. But as far as Trump is concerned, “appearances matter — sometimes more than substance,” said the same diplomat.

Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column. Like many, I used to believe that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the biggest strategic mistake America had made, at least since the Vietnam War. That is, until now. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences. The reasons for this are many, ranging from the immediate impact on the region and the global economy to the longer-term upshots for Russia and China, as well as the repercussions for U.S. alliances and America’s global standing. That much is already clear — and we’re only three weeks in. Let’s start with the similarities: Much like the Iraq War, the war against Iran began based on the presumption that the regime in power would swiftly fall and that a new, more moderate and less antagonistic one would take its place. In both instances, the idea was to remove the greatest destabilizing threat in the Middle East — Saddam Hussein’s regime in the initial case, the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran in the latter — through the swift and decisive use of military force. But while Bush understood that defeating a regime required ground forces, it seems Trump simply hoped that airpower alone would suffice. As a result, Hussein’s regime fell swiftly — though Bush did vastly underestimate what would be required to rebuild a stable, let alone a democratic, Iraq in its place. But the Iranian government, as U.S. intelligence officials themselves have testified, “appears to be intact” despite Israel killing many of its key political and security leaders through targeted strikes. Focusing on the region at large, Bush’s misjudgment eventually contributed to a large-scale insurgency, which strengthened Iran’s influence in Iraq and the wider Middle East. In contrast, Trump’s miscalculation has left in place a regime that, aside from assuring its own survival, is now singularly focused on inflicting as much damage on the U.S. and its allies as it possibly can. Iranian drones and missiles have already attacked Israel and the Gulf states, targeted critical energy production facilities and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which hosts one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas export transits. The Salalah oil storage fire in Oman is pictured on March 13, 2026. | Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 Less than a month in, the world is now witnessing the largest oil and gas disruption in history. And as the fighting escalates to include gas and oil production infrastructure, the global economic consequences will be felt by every single country for months, if not years, to come — even if the conflict were to end soon. The damage that has already been inflicted on the global economy is far greater than the economic consequences of the Iraq War in its entirety. But that’s not all. Geopolitically, the U.S.-Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war in Iraq ever did. For one, the Bush administration spent a lot of time and effort trying to get allies on board to participate in and support the war. It didn’t fully succeed in this, as key allies like Germany and France continued opposing the war. But it tried. Trump, by contrast, didn’t even try to get America’s most important allies on board. Not only that, he even failed to inform them of his decision. And yet, when Iran responded predictably by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president then demanded allies send their navies to escort tankers — despite the U.S. Navy so far refusing to do so. And while it’s true that Iraq left many U.S. allies — even those that joined the war, like the U.K. — deeply scarred, Iran has convinced U.S. allies they can no longer rely on the U.S., and that Washington is now a real threat to their economic security. That, too, will have a lasting impact well beyond anything the war in Iraq did. Finally, the fact remains that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, Russia and China were still minor global powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin was only just starting his effort to stabilize the economy and rebuild Russia’s military power, while China had just joined the World Trade Organization and was still a decade or more away from becoming an economic superpower. In other words, America’s blunder in Iraq occurred at a time when the strategic consequences for the global balance of power were still manageable. Trump’s Iran debacle is occurring at a time when China is effectively competing with the U.S. for global power and influence, and Russia is engaged in the largest military action in Europe since the end of World War II. A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in Tehran, Iran on March 15, 2026 after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before. | Majid Saeedi/Getty Images Both stand to benefit greatly. Russia is the short-term winner here. Oil prices are rising, generating more than $150 million per day in extra income for Moscow to feed its war machine. The U.S. is relaxing its sanctions against Russia in a vain attempt to stall prices from ballooning at the pump. All the while, Ukraine is being left to contend with Russia’s missile and drone attacks without the advanced defensive weaponry that’s now being used to protect Israel and the Gulf instead. China, meanwhile, is watching as the U.S. diverts its military forces from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where they will likely remain for months, if not years. These forces include a carrier strike group, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system from Korea, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan. And while a disruption in oil and gas supply will be a short-term problem for Beijing too, China’s rapid transition to renewables and close alignment with energy-rich Russia will leave it well placed to confidently confront the future. Bush and Trump both came to office determined to avoid the mistaken wars of their predecessors. Nevertheless, they both embarked on military adventures fed by a hubristic belief in American power. But while the U.S. was strong enough — and its adversaries still weak enough — to recoup much of the damage inflicted by Bush’s war, the war unfolding in Iran today will leave behind an America that will have lost much of its global power, standing and influence, destined to confront rising adversaries all on its own.

LONDON — Donald Trump has berated Keir Starmer over the Iran war. But the U.S. president might just have bought the British leader a little more time in the job. Trump blasted Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” for his limits on the U.S. launching offensive attacks from British bases — and has helped stoke criticism from opposition parties at home about an indecisive U.K. administration. But the global tumult from the U.S.-led war in the Middle East has had one counter-effect: strengthening, for now, Starmer’s precarious domestic position. Numerous errors and climbdowns — plus voter frustration at not seeing the “change” promised in the 2024 election — has left Starmer one of the most unpopular British prime ministers on record. Missteps and a failure to bring political troops with him on a host of controversial issues have also left Starmer sorely lacking support among his own MPs. Whether he will survive past a difficult round of local elections on May 7 is an open talking point at Westminster. Would-be replacements, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and former Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner, have made little secret of their hope to stand if a contest arises. But external events have a habit of changing the course of politics. And a sense is growing that the crisis in the Middle East is dampening the chatter about removing the prime minister. “Iran has bought him time,” said one Labour official, who like others in this piece spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party tensions. A Labour frontbencher, who in the past predicted Starmer would be out after the spring elections, said the war is “making colleagues think again about changing leader,” adding: “It focuses minds on who we want leading the country at a time of crisis. Would we really want Angela or Wes sitting around the NATO table?” Britain’s involvement entered a new stage on Friday, when the U.K. said the U.S. could use British bases to bomb Iranian missile sites attacking commercial shipping the Strait of Hormuz. Downing Street insisted this fell within the existing scope of “defensive” action that Starmer approved on Mar. 1. There is broad agreement among Labour MPs that Starmer has taken the correct approach to the conflict — refusing to let jibes from Trump rile him while sticking to his position that the initial U.S.-Israel offensive action was wrong but that allies need defending from Iranian blowback. “Most other potential prime ministers, Labour or otherwise, wouldn’t have had the backbone to stand firm, and would now be explaining to a furious British public how we were disentangling ourselves from Trump’s war and all the ensuing economic challenges we will face,” said one senior government official. The same person sensed that even among rival leadership camps “there is an acknowledgement that this war changes things. It would be a terrible time to be seen to be playing politics by any contender.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting speaks to the press at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England on March 19, 2026. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Indeed, one of Streeting’s allies accepted that there won’t be a leadership challenge while the war continues, adding that being a statesman on the world stage is “what Keir is good at.” Even disgruntled MPs have been telling each other “there’s no way there could be a challenge at a time like this,” one noted, while Conservative MPs have also discussed how the war has shored up the Starmer position.  But the calculation among plotters is still likely to come down to weighing the state of the war against how bad the verdict is from voters at the May local elections. “He’s played a blinder and is exactly where most of the country is,” one Starmer critic said. “But if it’s a bloodbath in May it would still be tricky. And it feels like everyone is on maneuvers in Westminster.” That is acknowledged even in government. One minister said the outcome will be difficult to predict if election results are “catastrophic,” while another said: “There is still a feeling that things are untenable and could come to a head quite quickly.” Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves have been contacting junior ministers in recent weeks encouraging them to rally round the prime minister, said one of those on the receiving end. They described the outreach as one of the “save Keir calls.” Some note, too, that those arguing that a leader cannot be changed during a war have forgotten lessons from the past. “The center [of government] will argue people shouldn’t move at a time of war, but we changed leaders during two world wars,” said another government frontbencher. “If things are really bad in May, I don’t think it will be the argument that stops people.” Even the ongoing Ukraine war serves as a lesson. There was murmuring among Conservative MPs that it would be wrong to oust their then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson amid war in Europe. But he was gone six months after the BBC reported it in 2022.  The opposition is also not giving Starmer the grace he afforded to Johnson as the Ukraine crisis mounted. “Starmer is in office but not in power and that is making Britain’s response to this conflict confused and incoherent,” a Conservative spokesperson said. In the end, it could be Starmer’s response to bad election results, not his reaction to a war beyond his control, that really seals his fate. “Clearly we are working hard to secure success in the May elections. However, following any election, it is right that there is a full assessment of the outcome,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has called for Starmer to quit in the past.  “There are always circumstances where a case can be made that ‘now is not the right time’ but what is important is that there is recognition of the outcome, the reasons why and the remedy that is required. “Let’s see where we get to in seven weeks’ time,” she added.

YOKOSUKA, Japan — Germany is seeking to deepen defense ties with Japan, with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius proposing a new agreement to make it easier for troops from both countries to operate on each other’s territory. Speaking at Japan’s Yokosuka naval base after talks with Japanese Defense Minister Shinjirō Koizumi on Sunday, Pistorius said Berlin had floated a so-called Reciprocal Access Agreement — a framework designed to “ease the exchange of soldiers in each other’s countries and significantly reduce bureaucratic hurdles.” Such agreements allow partner countries to deploy troops on each other’s soil more easily for training, exercises or operations by streamlining legal and administrative procedures. Japan has signed similar deals with countries like the United Kingdom and Australia as it deepens its own security ties amid rising regional tensions. The proposal marks a step beyond Germany’s recent Indo-Pacific engagements, which have largely focused on joint exercises and short-term deployments. It signals a shift toward more structured military cooperation with Berlin’s partners in the region. Pistorius framed the move as part of a broader response to growing global instability. “How close our partnership is has become clear in light of the current developments in Iran and the Middle East,” he said, pointing to Japan’s heavy reliance on energy imports through the Strait of Hormuz. “The freedom of sea routes must be guaranteed and protected.” Germany and Japan share an interest in securing global trade routes, he added, stressing that both countries remain committed to the rules-based international order. “We are united by the conviction that the strength of the law must prevail,” Pistorius said. The initiative also reflects a broader strategic shift in Berlin and Tokyo. As both governments face rising pressure from authoritarian powers — from Russia’s war in Ukraine to China and North Korea in East Asia — they are increasingly treating their security challenges as interconnected, translating those shared concerns into closer bilateral defense cooperation.