Europe often presents itself as a union built on common values and respect for a rules-based international order. But what exactly are the rules, and in which instances must they be followed?
Spain has emerged as a distinctive voice in this debate, refusing to distinguish between when to follow or not follow international law and international humanitarian law.
The current conflict with Washington stems from Spain’s refusal to allow US military bases at Morón and Rota to be used in the conflict with Iran, a decision rooted firmly in Spanish sovereignty. This marks a significant shift in the relationship between Spain and the US, which began in 1953 when a pact with the Franco dictatorship first granted the US access to these strategic installations. This stance is no surprise, given the Prime Minister’s words. As he has noted, the 2003 Iraq War was launched to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, bring democracy, and ensure global security, yet it produced the opposite effect. Seeing deep similarities between that conflict and the prospect of war with Iran, Spain refuses to repeat the mistake.
Moreover, Spain’s opposition is rooted in its official foreign action strategy, built on three pillars: a stronger Europe; a committed Spain upholding international law, human rights, multilateralism, and development cooperation; and a Spain that strengthens peace and security through collective defence, conflict mediation, and disarmament, in line with international humanitarian law.
The Washington answer was loud and clear, threatening Spain with tariffs and sanctions to force a policy change. Spain is now pushing to activate the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), finding support from the French President Emmanuel Macron. The ACI is a tool designed to deter third countries from using economic pressure and it was created because traditional responses, like WTO disputes, were seen as too slow or ineffective against coercion that doesn’t clearly break international law.
This fracture raises fundamental questions: does alliance have to mean acquiescence? Must partnership require suspending judgment when international law is violated?
While other European powers hesitate to oppose US or Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, fearing transatlantic disruption or being dragged into conflict, Spain warns that even a neutral Europe will suffer from disruption to trade through the Strait of Hormuz. The only clear option, Madrid argues, is to stand against being dragged into another endless Middle Eastern war.
Spain’s insistence on international law extends to the most contentious conflicts of the moment: when the Venezuela crisis erupted, Spain condemned violations of international law and urged the EU to lift sanctions following an amnesty bill; when questions arose about Greenland’s territorial integrity, Spain grounded its response in the principle of self-determination for the people of Greenland.; as Iran tensions intensified, Spain warned that standing up to this war is Europe’s only clear option; and when economic coercion threatened to change Spanish security policy from the United States, Spain refused to bend.
What becomes clear is that passivity is itself an answer. As Prime Minister Sánchez reminded us: even if Europe stays out of conflict, the consequences will be far-reaching. Yet faced with this logic, there remains a strong tendency for countries to “go along to get along“, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.
This dynamic is perfectly captured in the words of the Canadian Prime Minister at Davos earlier this year:
“The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack.”
This observation proves true not only with the current Iran conflict but across Spain’s foreign policy stance. In this way, Spain challenges the performance of sovereignty.
The contrast between Prime Minister Sánchez and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whom some have labeled “the inconsistent partner” (“el socio inconstante”) based on his interactions with Trump, raises questions about Merz’s intentions for Europe and whether Europe’s interests are truly being represented. Perhaps it is no coincidence that public support for Europe’s leaders remains weak, where ratings for figures like Merz have fallen.
This alignment suggests that policy accurately reflects what populations expect from their governments on the international stage. Yet this sentiment is not confined to Spain. In Turkey, people have begun to express growing support for Spain and its Prime Minister. Many are sharing images that unite the Spanish and Turkish flags, along with AI-generated portrayals of the Spanish leader as a warrior or protector. This wave of solidarity first emerged in 2024, driven by the shared stance of both countries’ prime ministers on the situation in Gaza.
The question of when to say “no” to war seems to have become contentious, raising doubts about whether the European Union maintains a relevant position when the image it projects is one of fracture, even though what it truly needs is cohesion. This is particularly evident when considering past issues like Greenland, where unity proved to be the key to success.
Even though some argue that Sánchez’s stance is driven more by domestic concerns than strategic calculation, the reality is that Spain has become one of the most vocal countries on the international stage.
While much attention has focused on his opposition to Trump, Spain’s foreign policy follows a consistent path, unafraid to name names, whether referring to Germany, Israel, or the United States, and willing to hold other EU countries accountable in defense of multilateralism and human rights. Whether this makes Spain Europe’s moral compass or simply its most principled outlier remains an open question.
By Lisa Barut
March 30, 2026
