Spain's opposition to the Iran war rests on two pillars: a commitment to international law and the hard lessons of the 2003 Iraq War
When the US-Israel war on Iran broke out on 28 February, the NATO allies of the US did not speak in one voice. While the Czech Republic and Poland came out in open support of the US action, the UK came out in cautious support, offering help for "defensive strikes," and Germany argued that "international law does not apply to Iran" (though this stance would change over the course of the next two months or so). However, Spain came out with the strongest criticism from any US ally, the extent of which surprised even seasoned observers.
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez immediately condemned the strikes, labelling them a violation of international law. He went a step further, declaring that while his country was not participating in the attacks, it would also deny the US the use of jointly operated military bases on Spanish territory. These included the naval base of Rota and the air base of Morón. The Spanish government additionally declared the complete closure of Spanish airspace to US aircraft involved in the war. It also announced the withdrawal of its ambassador to Israel amid escalating diplomatic tensions.
Relations between the two NATO allies had already been strained over US President Donald Trump's pressure on Spain to increase its defence spending and his persistent threats of higher tariffs.
The American response to the Spanish government's position on the war was sharp and expressly critical. Relations between the two NATO allies had already been strained over US President Donald Trump's pressure on Spain to increase its defence spending and his persistent threats of higher tariffs. President Trump called Spain a "terrible ally" and threatened to "cut off" all trade with the country over its opposition to the war, while Senator Lindsey Graham argued that the US military bases should be removed from Spain entirely. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Spain's actions "put American lives at risk."
Spain's opposition to the war is particularly significant, not least because the two countries are NATO allies committed to collective defence. The two countries also maintain deep historical, cultural and economic ties. Bilateral trade between the two countries hovers around the US$50 billion mark. It is therefore especially notable that Spain has taken a stance against an ally with which it shares such close civilisational links.
Spain's reasons for taking this hardline stand against the US-Israel war on Iran are twofold: international and domestic.
First, regarding international considerations, Spain has argued that the war is illegal. The logic underpinning this argument is that since the war has not been authorised by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), it violates international law. This position also closely aligns with Spain's commitment to a rules-based international order. Within any rules-based system, a unilateral use of force without proper authorisation amounts to bypassing international law — and in that light, Spain's decision to oppose a treaty ally begins to make sense.
The Conservative government, however, misattributed the attacks to the Basque separatist group ETA — a claim that was later proven false, as the attacks were carried out by terrorists inspired by Al-Qaeda.
Second, in terms of domestic reasons, Spain's stance on the war has also been shaped by its domestic politics and the internal security concerns that arose in the aftermath of the Iraq War. When the Iraq War began in 2003, the Conservative government led by Prime Minister José María Aznar wholeheartedly supported the American war effort and deployed 1,300 Spanish troops. However, on 11 March 2004, a series of train bombings shook Madrid, killing 193 people. The Socialists viewed this as a direct consequence of Spain's participation in the war. The Conservative government, however, misattributed the attacks to the Basque separatist group ETA — a claim that was later proven false, as the attacks were carried out by terrorists inspired by Al-Qaeda. A few days after the bombings, the Socialists won the scheduled general elections and withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. It is also worth noting that Spain's involvement in Iraq had already triggered massive public protests under the slogan "No a la guerra" ("No to war"). These protests, together with the bombings, have shaped Spanish political thinking ever since — particularly within the Socialist Party, currently led by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has explicitly referred to the importance of not repeating the mistakes of the past. Internal security concerns, therefore, continue to play a crucial role in shaping Spanish foreign policy.
Spain's divergent stance has once again brought to light the reality that NATO is not a monolith. Members, though treaty-bound by a commitment to collective defence, retain their own independent voices. This has been made clear by the course of events over the past two months. Despite repeated exhortations by President Trump, no NATO ally joined the US in the war against Iran. The UK has adopted a cautious posture, providing defensive military support in the region while stopping short of participating in offensive strikes, while Germany, though allowing the US use of the Ramstein air base, has firmly rejected any direct military involvement and distanced itself from calls to frame the conflict as a NATO mission. Spain, however, stands apart from all its NATO allies in the clarity and firmness of its position. How NATO dynamics evolve from here will be worth watching, particularly given that President Trump has repeatedly threatened allied nations with "punishment" for refusing to join the war effort.
The UK has adopted a cautious posture, providing defensive military support in the region while stopping short of participating in offensive strikes, while Germany, though allowing the US use of the Ramstein air base, has firmly rejected any direct military involvement and distanced itself from calls to frame the conflict as a NATO mission.
The war has shown that treaty allies need not be joined at the hip when it comes to crises such as these. Alliances do not bind members in a way that extinguishes sovereignty. Individual countries retain their agency and can choose to disagree with their partners. While Spain's internal security considerations play a crucial part in its foreign policy orientation, its stance also signifies a commitment to multilateralism over unilateral adventures in a rules-based international order where neutrality still holds currency.
Abhishek Khajuria is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Abhishek Khajuria is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. ...
Read More +
PREV
