Why Madrid said ‘no’ to Washington

Last week, Spain announced that it would prohibit the United States from using its military bases in Cádiz and Seville to launch strikes against Iran. For Madrid, the decision was a bold statement on three fronts: it was an assertion of sovereignty; a defense of international law and a protest against Washington’s increasing reliance on military force as a tool of foreign policy.

Spain has never concealed its objections over Tehran’s repression at home and its destabilizing activities abroad. The Iranian government has long been accused of sponsoring militant groups, suppressing dissent and exporting a revolutionary ideology that fuels regional conflict. In that sense, Spain shares the broad Western consensus that the regime of Ali Khamenei poses a global security threat and that the Iranian people deserve better.

But recognizing the brutality of a regime is one thing and endorsing military intervention is another.

Spain’s refusal to allow American warplanes to launch attacks from its soil is a result of lessons learned from history, particularly America’s 2003 attack of Iraq. It will be recalled that Washington also sought the cooperation of its allies to topple and  replace Saddam Hussein’s regime. America insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed imminent threat to global security. Allied airbases across Europe and the Middle East became staging grounds for the Iraqi invasion.

Yet the justification for that war ultimately collapsed. No weapons of mass destruction were found and the promise to restore democracy was never fulfilled. Instead, the country descended into years of insurgency, sectarian violence and political chaos.

Spain remembers this. So to allow American forces to once again use allied bases for a preemptive strike – this time against Iran – would mean repeating a disastrous mistake.

And from Madrid’s perspective, the social and humanitarian costs of such military action are simply too high. We’ve seen the brutality on media platforms. Air campaigns, even those said to be “precision strikes,” inevitably lead to civilian casualties and ruined infrastructure.

Spain’s position recognizes a difficult truth – that military intervention rarely delivers the democratic transformation it promises. If anything, it deepens grievances, radicalizes populations and destabilizes entire regions. Just look at what happened in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. These wars taught us that regime change imposed through military  force seldom produces the political outcomes promised by Washington.

America undermines international law

According to the governance framework authored by the US through the United Nations, the use of force must be the last resort, permissible only for self-defense or if  authorization is secured from the United Nations Security Council.

Preemptive strikes without such legal backing undermines the rule of law.

Spain sees its decision as a defense of international law. Because when powerful nations bypass legal frameworks and act unilaterally, they weaken the rules-based international order. It sends a signal that military might, rather than law, is the ultimate arbiter of international disputes. This danger cannot be overstated, especially for the Philippines, which relies on the rule of law to confront China’s territorial grab.

Spain’s refusal to cooperate with the United States reflects its commitment to uphold  the rule of law. That the conduct of nations should be governed by law and institutions, not by force and  coercion.

Trump’s reaction

The response from President Trump was  predictably petulant. Rather than respect Spain’s position, Trump reacted with anger, insults and threats. He said he would   punish Spain by halting  trade.

Such a move would undoubtedly hurt Spain. The US is a major destination for Spanish exports, and many Spanish companies – from renewable energy firms to infrastructure developers – have significant operations in American. All of them will face disruptions.

But there will be consequences for America too. Spanish agricultural products are staples in American food supply and restrictions could prove inflationary. Further, the American manufacturing sector relies on Spanish raw materials, machinery  and industrial components to operate. These too will be affected.

A fragmented Europe?

Spain’s decision contrasts sharply with the position taken by Germany, Italy, the UK and France, all of whom showed willingness to cooperate with America, albeit in varying degrees. At first glance, this divergence may appear to expose a fragmented European Union struggling to speak with a unified voice on foreign policy.

But the reality is more nuanced. The EU was never designed to eliminate the sovereignty of its members in matters of national security. Each country retains the right to pursue its own foreign policy according to its interests and historical experiences. Spain’s stance is not a failure of European unity but an illustration of European pluralism.

Different nations bring different perspectives to the table. Some prioritize solidarity with Washington. Others emphasize legal constraints and diplomatic solutions. Thus, the presence of dissenting voices ultimately strengthens Europe’s role on the world stage.

A Europe that merely echoes American strategic priorities offers little value added in global diplomacy. But a Europe that provides balance, caution and alternative perspectives can help prevent rash decisions that carry enormous consequences.

Spain’s opposition serves precisely this purpose. It reminds the international community that even close allies can disagree when fundamental principles are at stake. More importantly, it underscores that alliances should not require automatic compliance. True partnerships allow room for debate, reflection and independent judgment.

In the end, Spain’s refusal to allow its bases to be used for an attack on Iran is not an act of defiance – it is an act of restraint. It reflects a country that has learned from the past and one that has chosen to stand on the side of international law.

Whether one agrees with Madrid or not, one thing remains clear: military power alone cannot define the rules of the global order. That said, the most responsible decision an ally can make is simply to say no.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @aj_masigan