No Events
The resumption of Israeli and U.S. attacks against Iran is a significant development that will affect not only regional security balances but also the future of transatlantic relations. In this context, the Spanish government’s refusal to support the ongoing operations and its refusal to allow U.S. military bases in the country to be used for these operations has emerged as a notable foreign policy choice.
This decision by the government led by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was harshly criticized by U.S. President Donald Trump, and the Madrid administration was threatened with trade and diplomatic sanctions.
A Normative Foreign Policy Centered on Diplomacy
The Sánchez government’s approach to foreign policy aligns closely with a framework often defined in the literature as “normative power” or “diplomatic power politics.” This approach aims to place international law, multilateralism, and diplomatic negotiation mechanisms at the center of foreign policy while limiting the use of military tools.
The Spanish government explicitly objected to the operation, which it viewed as a violation of international law. Spain did not grant permission for the Pentagon to use the Rota and Morón de la Frontera military bases. Madrid argued that this policy is not an exceptional decision, but rather a natural extension of the diplomacy-centered foreign policy approach it has pursued in recent years.
Furthermore, the Sanchez government expressed the view that military operations against Iran would increase regional instability and further disrupt the fragile balances currently in place in the Middle East. According to the government, while military interventions may provide deterrence in the short term, they carry the risk of deepening cycles of regional conflict in the long term.
For this reason, the Sánchez government argues that international diplomatic platforms must be reactivated regarding the Iran issue, and crisis management should be conducted through negotiation-based mechanisms.
In short, by acting independently, Spain has become a champion of opposition to U.S. actions and has revived the “no to war” slogan used by the Spanish Socialist Party against the Iraq War in 2003.
Continuity in Rhetoric and Policy
Spain’s approach to Iran demonstrates a clear continuity in rhetoric and strategy when compared to the policies adopted by the Madrid government in other international crises.
For example, during the Gaza crisis, the Spanish government called for the limitation of military operations and the protection of civilians, emphasizing the need to strengthen diplomatic initiatives. Similarly, following the Russia-Ukraine War, while Spain supported the European Union’s (EU) sanctions policies, it frequently stated that the war’s ultimate resolution could be achieved through diplomatic negotiations.
In this context, the Iran issue demonstrates a certain normative consistency in the Sánchez government’s approach to international crises. While the Madrid administration acknowledges that military options cannot be entirely eliminated from international politics, it advocates for prioritizing diplomatic tools in resolving conflicts.
Transatlantic Relations and NATO Dynamics
On the other hand, Spain’s refusal to support operations against Iran has also sparked some debate regarding alliance solidarity within NATO. Spain holds a key strategic position on NATO’s southern flank in terms of Mediterranean security, and the U.S. military bases located in the country are among the critical elements of the transatlantic security architecture.
However, the Madrid administration has also sparked a debate by arguing that NATO membership does not imply automatic support for every military operation. While NATO’s collective defense mechanism is primarily activated when member states are directly attacked, operations targeting Iran are considered outside this scope.
The tension emerging between the U.S. and Spain can also be interpreted as part of a broader transformation in transatlantic relations. In recent years, while European countries have continued to cooperate with the U.S. on security policies, they have also sought to adopt more independent positions from Washington in certain crises.
The EU’s Stance
Madrid’s approach to Iran is also being evaluated within the context of the growing “strategic autonomy” debate within the EU. Spain’s decision can be seen as an example of Europe’s quest to define its own diplomatic and strategic priorities in global crises. Furthermore, this stance aligns with views advocating that Europe should develop a more balanced and diplomacy-focused approach to Middle East policy. It also appears consistent with the growing emphasis on multilateral diplomacy within the EU.
On the other hand, the EU’s stance so far has been moderate but inconsistent. The nonsensical rhetoric coming from some European capitals trying to win Trump’s favor stands in sharp contrast to Spain’s position. Brussels, lacking a consistent common position, is adopting a low-profile approach to maintain a balance that satisfies everyone and avoid committing to anything, resorting to rhetoric such as calls for restraint, respect for international law, and the use of diplomacy.
Most European states are shying away from concrete actions alongside this rhetoric. With the exception of Spain, none of the countries hosting U.S. bases have placed any obstacles in the way of the use of these bases or airspace to support military operations. Additionally, some countries have deployed military reinforcements to the Eastern Mediterranean.
However, Trump’s threat against Spain has drawn relatively more backlash within the EU. Spanish MP and leader of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Iratxe Garcia-Perez, warned, “Trump’s threats will hit a wall: the EU’s trade power.” Former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell stated, “I fully support the Spanish government’s condemnation of the U.S. and Israel. This is a reaffirmation of the principles upon which the EU is founded and of national sovereignty,” he said.
European Public Opinion and Diplomatic Discourse
Sánchez’s “diplomacy over war” rhetoric may resonate in different ways within European public opinion. A security approach centered on diplomacy offers a policy framework that could find support in many European societies, particularly in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine War. However, some security circles argue that this approach could weaken deterrence and lead to more aggressive behavior by authoritarian actors.
Therefore, it can be said that Sanchez’s rhetoric reflects the search for balance between two distinct approaches—military deterrence and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions—that lie at the heart of ongoing security debates in European politics.
In an unpredictable and increasingly escalating situation, Europe’s lack of a consistent position further exacerbates the continent’s vulnerability. The current crisis is testing, more forcefully than ever, Europe’s ability to act as a strategic player rather than merely observing decisions made by others.
In this context, Spain’s approach to Iran presents a multifaceted policy example that should be analyzed not merely as a short-term security preference, but within the broader framework of transformations in European foreign policy, shifts in transatlantic relations, and debates over strategic autonomy.
This article has been published by Anadolu Agency (in Turkish) on March 10, 2026.
