“No to war, Spain is against this disaster”: Sánchez challenges Trump (and rewrites the concept of sovereignty)

In just three words, “no to war”, Pedro Sánchez defined a political boundary: the one within which a state decides not to participate in a military operation that it deems illegitimate, even if it is the most powerful ally asking for it.

The refusal to allow the United States to use the bases of Rota and Morón, in Andalusia, to strike Iran provoked the reaction of Donald Trump, who accused Madrid of being a “terrible partner” and threatened to interrupt trade with Spain. The prime minister’s response was clear: Spain will not be “accomplice for fear of reprisals”.

The Iraqi precedent

In his institutional speech on March 4, Sánchez reiterated a principle: one cannot respond to one illegality with another illegality. The reference is to the attacks that set the Middle East on fire after the US and Israeli raid against Iran and Tehran’s subsequent response.

I have said it many times and I will repeat it once again: you cannot respond to one illegality with another illegality, because this is how humanity’s great catastrophes begin.

The head of government evoked a specific precedent: the 2003 war in Iraq. Then the Bush administration, with the support of London and Madrid, justified the intervention with the existence of weapons of mass destruction that had never been found. Years later, the British “Chilcot Report” documented errors of evaluation and destabilizing consequences: jihadist terrorism, migration crises in the eastern Mediterranean, strong energy volatility.

Sánchez warned against repeating that trajectory. About 20%-25% of the world’s oil and gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the International Energy Agency. A prolonged war in that area means rising prices, financial instability, pressure on European families and businesses.

Sovereignty within alliances

Madrid’s decision does not equate to an exit from the Atlantic perimeter. Spain remains a member of NATO and the European Union. But, in the prime minister’s reading, belonging to an alliance does not annul national political responsibility.

The European Commission expressed “full solidarity” with Madrid and willingness to defend common interests in the event of trade retaliation. In this passage we glimpse a change in meaning of the word sovereignty. Not identity closure or isolation but the ability to exercise autonomous judgment when a military choice risks compromising international law, economic stability and civil security.

Even from an environmental point of view, the point is not secondary: armed conflicts have a direct impact on global energy chains, emissions and the race for fossil resources. A war in the Gulf means more oil on the agenda, less ecological transition.

Leadership and risk

In his speech, Sánchez evoked the dynamics that led to the outbreak of the First World War: chains of out-of-control reactions, miscalculations, unexpected escalations. “You cannot play with the fate of millions of people,” said the Spanish Prime Minister, who also indicated concrete measures: evacuation of Spanish citizens from the crisis area, study of tools to protect families and businesses from possible energy shocks, coordination with European partners for a diplomatic response. In short, preventive risk management.

Being a leader, in this context, means taking responsibility for a no. Not out of sympathy for the Iranian regime – defined as repressive and violent – but out of consistency with international law and national interest.

Defend the country without raising flags

The most politically significant passage is perhaps the one on “complicity through fear”. For the prime minister, automatically following the ally is not leadership. Loyalty does not coincide with obedience. Here sovereignty takes on a different profile from the one stirred in controversy in recent years: it is not a rejection of Europe or multilateral institutions, but a defense of decision-making autonomy within them. It is the choice not to participate in an operation that promises stability but which, in reality, risks producing its exact opposite: higher energy prices, more geopolitical tension.

It can be a gamble. It can have economic costs. But it defines a precise idea of ​​government: protecting citizens, the economy and civil space from a conflict that, as Sánchez pointed out, is unlikely to produce higher wages, better public services or a healthier environment.

In a historical moment of permanent escalation, courage can also consist in not jumping on the war bandwagon.