By Gustavo de Arístegui,
March 4, 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
On March 4, 2026, the world awoke to the fifth consecutive day of the US-Israeli Operation “Epic Fury” against Iran and a major diplomatic earthquake within the Atlantic Alliance itself. The conflict in the Middle East acted as a relentless catalyst, revealing the true nature of European governments in this moment of truth. While Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—with their nuances and reservations—did not break with Washington, the Spanish government under Mr. Sánchez staged the most scandalous response from a NATO partner in decades: not only did it refuse to lend the Rota and Morón air bases, but it also expelled the fifteen US tanker aircraft operating from its territory, in the midst of the military campaign against the terrorist regime in Tehran.
Washington’s reaction has been commensurate with the gravity of the affront. Donald Trump threatened to sever all trade relations with Spain. Senator Lindsey Graham, an increasingly influential voice in Republican foreign policy, called Sánchez’s government an “aberration” and an example of the “patheously weak gold standard of European leadership.” Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares is directly responsible for a decision that has seriously damaged Spanish national interests and left our country in an unprecedented position of isolation within the Alliance.
This report places that diplomatic scandal at the center of its analysis. The war with Iran, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, European rearmament, and the doctrine of cascading regime change complete a geopolitical panorama of exceptional intensity.
II. THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Graham calls the Sánchez government an “aberration” and Trump threatens to cut off all trade with Spain
▶ FACTS
The government of Pedro Sánchez became the only NATO government that not only refused to support Operation Epic Fury but went a step further: Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares publicly declared that “Spanish bases are not being used for this operation and will not be used for anything that does not comply with the Charter of the United Nations.” Madrid then demanded the immediate withdrawal of the fifteen US Air Force tanker aircraft operating from the Rota and Morón de la Frontera bases in support of in-flight refueling operations. The aircraft left Spanish territory. It was the first forced withdrawal of US military units from a NATO base by the sovereign decision of the host country during a period of active conflict.
Washington’s response was swift. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina issued a public statement on social media that constituted the most significant verbal attack ever directed at a Spanish government by a top-level American politician in the history of the bilateral relationship:
“The current government in Spain is becoming the gold standard of pathetically weak European leadership that has lost its moral way, apparently reluctant to condemn the terrorist regime in Iran and have nothing but criticism for the United States. I’m hoping this current Spanish government is an aberration, not the norm.” — Senator Lindsey Graham, March 2, 2026
Graham added that “history will take note of where Spain stood” when the United States and its allies were trying to confront “the most bloodthirsty regime since World War II.” He emphasized his personal admiration for the Spanish people and for the Spain he knew during his service as an Air Force prosecutor in Europe in the 1980s, highlighting the difference between that allied and committed Spain and “the current leadership.”
President Donald Trump, in the Oval Office during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, expressed himself with a bluntness that will go down in the annals of transatlantic diplomacy:
“Spain has been terrible. Spain has absolutely nothing that we need. They have great people, but they don’t have great leadership. We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain; we don’t want anything to do with Spain.” — President Donald Trump, Oval Office, March 3, 2026
Trump confirmed that he had instructed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to halt “all dealings with Spain.” He added that Sánchez had also refused to commit to the 5% of GDP defense spending target that Washington requires of its allies.
▶ IMPLICATIONS
The decision by the Sánchez-Albares government is, in terms of Spanish foreign policy, one of the most serious strategic errors in Spanish democracy. To fully understand its implications, it is essential to recall the context: Spain hosts the largest US naval presence outside the continental United States in the Mediterranean, with four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile defense system, based in Rota. Rota and Morón are key components of NATO’s defense architecture on the southern flank. The bilateral Spanish-US Defense and Cooperation Agreement is due for review in 2026. Madrid has just entered these negotiations in the worst possible position, having expelled its allies from their bases in the midst of a military crisis.
Minister Albares, who has held the Foreign Ministry portfolio since 2021 and has been the architect of a foreign policy marked by a systematic distancing from Washington and alignment with the less pro-Atlantic positions within the European spectrum, bears the institutional signature of this decision. The argument that Spain only permits the use of its bases “for activities consistent with the Charter of the United Nations” is a legal formulation as lax as it is convenient: it allows Albares to cloak what is nothing more than ideology in the guise of principles. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—with their reservations and conditions—did not go that far. Spain did.
Graham’s characterization of the government as an “aberration” is not empty rhetoric: it is the political judgment of one of the most influential Republican senators on the nature of the Sánchez administration in the context of Atlantic security. When Graham says he “hopes it is a parenthesis,” he is telling the world that Washington does not consider this government a reliable interlocutor and that it trusts Spain will return to its Atlanticist tradition in the next legislature.
▶ PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
Trump’s threat to cut bilateral trade is, in part, negotiating rhetoric. The volume of Spanish-American trade—more than €35 billion annually—makes a complete rupture in the short term unlikely. But the political and institutional damage is real and immediate. Negotiations for a new Defense Agreement—which should be renewed this year—begin with a very serious burden. The Rota and Morón air bases could lose investment, personnel, and operational relevance. And even more importantly, Spain’s credibility as a partner in any future crisis scenario will have been seriously compromised with NATO’s most important ally. All of this is a direct consequence of an ideological decision by Mr. Sánchez and his Minister Albares, who have prioritized their domestic policy convictions over Spain’s national interests.
2. Graham: “Cuba is next” – “Trump surpassed Reagan” – The doctrine of chain-reaction regime change
▶ FACTS
Senator Lindsey Graham, the same senator who vilified the Sánchez government as an “aberration,” delivered a speech on Fox News on Sunday night, March 1st, that can be considered the most explicit formulation to date of the new US foreign policy under Trump. In the triumphalist tone of someone who has just won a major battle, Graham reviewed the administration’s achievements in a way that deserves to be read in its entirety:
“President Trump finished the job that President Reagan failed to do! I am a big admirer of Ronald Reagan, but Donald Trump is the gold standard for Republicans, maybe any president, when it comes to foreign policy. Maduro? Everybody talked about him; well, Donald Trump’s got him in jail! Cuba’s next. They’re going to fail. This communist dictatorship in Cuba? Their days are numbered.” — Senator Lindsey Graham, Fox News, March 1, 2026
Graham’s remarks come amid a flurry of activity in Trump’s immediate circle. A senior administration official told Vivian Salama of The Atlantic that the president “feels like he’s on a roll, that this is working.” Just a day before launching his attacks on Iran, Trump himself had floated the idea of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba, indicating that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in high-level contact with Havana. Rubio had declared: “The status quo in Cuba is unacceptable. Cuba has to change.”
In an interview with the New York Times, Trump said the Venezuelan model was “the perfect scenario”: capture Maduro, guarantee American companies access to Venezuelan oil, and let the rest of the regime run the country under US tutelage. The potential application of this scheme to Cuba raises major geopolitical questions.
▶ IMPLICATIONS
The sequence Graham outlines—Venezuela executed, Iran underway, Cuba next—actually defines a reorientation of US foreign policy with global consequences. The 21st-century “Monroe Doctrine,” in its Trump version, establishes that the United States has the right and the will to intervene militarily to change regimes in its hemisphere and in those countries it considers nuclear or terrorist threats. For those of us who share the conviction that the Chavista narco-dictatorship is a hemispheric disgrace, that Cuban Castroism is one of history’s last garbage dumps, and that the jihadist oligarchy in Tehran deserved to be eradicated, Graham’s diagnosis is essentially correct. The problem—and it is a serious one—is the absence of a political architecture for the day after.
The reference to Reagan is not innocent. Graham is constructing a historical genealogy for Trump that connects him to the most admired Republican president of the 20th century, precisely the one whose firmness—”tear down this wall”—precipitated the collapse of Soviet communism. The comparison is bold and debatable, but it reflects the mood of a segment of the Republican establishment that feels the moment is historic and doesn’t want to waste it.
▶ PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The realization of the threat to Cuba depends on the outcome of the war with Iran. If the operation concludes with relative success—a weakened regime, a nuclear agreement, and an acceptable political transition—pressure on Havana will intensify with additional sanctions, economic pressure campaigns, and the collapse of Venezuelan subsidies post-Maduro as a catalyst for its downfall. A direct military attack on Cuba is unlikely in the short term, but the Trump administration knows that a free Cuba would be its greatest historical legacy in the hemisphere. The temptation to force it is real. Strategic prudence, however, advises against opening more simultaneous fronts until the Iranian front has been resolved with some viable transitional framework.
3. “This is no Winston Churchill” – Trump and the transatlantic crisis: Starmer, Spain and the European divorce
▶ FACTS
Alongside the blow to Spain, the other major dimension of the transatlantic earthquake of the last 48 hours is the visible rift between Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump gave simultaneous interviews to The Telegraph and the tabloid The Sun in which he unleashed a barrage of criticism against Starmer, unprecedented between two allied leaders of the Atlantic Alliance. The Labour prime minister had initially denied the use of British bases for offensive operations and only partially relented days later, authorizing a “specific and limited use for defensive purposes” of two bases on British soil. Trump called it insufficient, belated, and disappointing. In the Oval Office, before Merz and the media:
“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with. I’m not happy with the UK. It’s taken three, four days for us to work out where we can land. It’s very sad to see that the relationship is obviously not what it was.” — President Donald Trump, Oval Office, March 3, 2026
The Financial Times described Starmer’s stance as his “Love Actually moment”—alluding to the scene in the film where the British prime minister confronts the American president. Starmer responded to Parliament: “President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz—the first European leader to visit Trump since the start of the attacks—was, in contrast, greeted with praise. Trump emphasized that Germany “was helping” by allowing the use of its bases and that Merz was an “excellent leader.” Merz, in turn, declared that Germany and the US were “on the same page” regarding ending the Iranian regime and discussing “the day after.”
Meanwhile, France and Germany announced the creation of a joint Franco-German nuclear steering group, the first concrete sign in decades that Europe is beginning to build an independent continental deterrent. Europe was informed “minutes before” the attacks began, according to MEP Hannah Neumann, chair of the delegation for relations with Iran, who spoke before the European Parliament.
▶ IMPLICATIONS
The transatlantic crisis reveals a clear hierarchy of European behavior under the ultimate test: Germany, committed; France, useful defensively; the United Kingdom, ambiguous but ultimately cooperative. Spain, the only one to break with the transatlantic consensus, expelled aircraft and condemned the attacks. The comparison of Starmer to Churchill is harsh but contains a grain of truth: at the moment of the historic decision, the Labour prime minister hesitated where the British statesman would have acted. However, there is a fundamental difference between Starmer and Sánchez: Starmer hesitated but did not cross the line of active rupture. Sánchez and Albares crossed it with the expulsion of the tanker aircraft. The difference is not one of degree; it is one of nature.
The emergence of Franco-German nuclear cooperation is the most significant long-term strategic development of the entire crisis: for the first time since the end of the Cold War, two European powers are formally addressing the issue of an autonomous continental deterrence, which will have profound consequences for the European security architecture and for Spain’s role in it — if Spain manages to emerge from the ostracism into which the current government has plunged it.
▶ PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The Anglo-American special relationship is experiencing its greatest strain since Suez, but it has the historical, linguistic, and institutional foundations to withstand it. Starmer will end up conceding more than he has already done. Spain, on the other hand, faces negotiations on its defense agreements in the worst possible position. The only realistic scenario for recovery involves a change of government in Madrid that once again places Spain at the heart of European Atlanticism—something Graham himself, by calling the Sánchez government a “parenthesis,” seems to anticipate and desire.
4. Operation Epic Fury: Day Five – Khamenei dead, new supreme leader, and no architecture for the “day after”
▶ FACTS
The armed conflict enters its fifth day this Wednesday. The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed the destruction of more than 2,000 Iranian targets and the elimination of 17 warships belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “Today there is not a single Iranian ship in the Arabian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, or the Gulf of Oman,” declared Admiral Brad Cooper. The death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, confirmed on March 1, has triggered an emergency succession: Iranian sources indicate that the Assembly of Experts has appointed Mojtaba Khamenei—the deceased’s son—as the new Supreme Leader. President Pezeshkian announced that the executive branch is delegating power to the provincial governors. Israeli attacks on March 3 struck missile production facilities across the country. Iran hit a synagogue’s air raid shelter in Beit Shemesh with a missile, killing nine and wounding dozens. Six American soldiers have died.
In the Oval Office, Trump responded to the question of who could lead Iran after the war with a phrase that encapsulates the central strategic problem of the operation:
“Most of the people we had in mind are dead. Someone from within [the regime] might be the best choice. You go through this, and then in five years you realize you put someone in who was no better.” — President Donald Trump, Oval Office, March 3, 2026
▶ IMPLICATIONS
The death of Khamenei and the potential dynastic succession of his son Mojtaba’a present an insurmountable contradiction with the stated objective of regime change. If the regime perpetuates itself under new leadership, the operation will have destroyed military and nuclear infrastructure at the cost of casualties and enormous regional instability, without achieving its fundamental political objective. Trump’s admission that “most of the ones we had in mind are dead” is the unwitting epitome of a lack of post-conflict planning that critics of the operation have pointed out from the outset.
▶ PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
The most likely scenario in the short term is a gradual deterioration of the Iranian military combined with continued retaliatory strikes by the IRGC using missiles and drones. The reopening of the Lebanese front—Hezbollah declared “open war” and attacked Haifa on March 2—multiplies the strategic complexity. The risk of a protracted war without a clear political objective is the main danger at the moment. Trump urgently needs an architect for the aftermath, and so far, that architect is conspicuously absent.
5. The blocked Strait of Hormuz: the biggest energy risk since 1973
▶ FACTS
The IRGC declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to international maritime traffic. An IRGC general threatened to “set fire” to any vessel attempting to cross. One hundred and fifty ships, including numerous oil tankers, are stranded awaiting permission to resume navigation. Qatar Energy halted liquefied natural gas (LNG) production at Ras Laffan following Iranian attacks on its facilities, sending European natural gas prices soaring nearly 70% in two days. Brent crude surpassed $83 per barrel. Dubai’s financial markets will reopen this Wednesday after a two-day suspension. Goldman Sachs warned that the market correction has yet to occur: its impact could be “violent.”
▶ IMPLICATIONS
The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately 20% of the world’s maritime oil trade—some 20 million barrels per day—and 17% of global LNG. Its effective blockade represents the greatest energy risk since the 1973 crisis. For Europe, which already suffered a severe energy crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the impact threatens to be devastating. The German government activated its gas crisis team. International insurers have withdrawn “war risk” coverage for shipping in the area. The dollar strengthened against the euro, which fell to 1.1590. Gold and silver rose as safe-haven assets.
▶ PERSPECTIVES AND SCENARIOS
If the closure lasts more than two weeks, the impact on global inflation could be an additional 30 to 50 basis points, with direct consequences for central bank interest rates. The United States is considering releasing Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs) and providing naval escorts for tankers. A prolonged blockade could trigger a global recession. Partial normalization of traffic—if the CGRI is sufficiently downgraded—could occur within weeks.
III. MEDIA RACK
Anglo-Saxon media
The Washington Post and The New York Times: Highly critical coverage of the lack of post-conflict planning. The Post reports that American and Israeli officials “were unprepared for the speed and scope of the Iranian retaliation.” The NYT quotes Trump’s admission in full: “Most of the ones we had in mind are dead.” Both newspapers point to the absence of a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
The Wall Street Journal/Financial Times: The WSJ reports that the UAE was “on the brink” after Iranian drones penetrated its air defense system. The FT dubs Starmer’s stance his “Love Actually moment” and warns of the economic damage caused by the Strait of Hormuz blockade. Goldman Sachs CEO warns that the market correction has not yet begun. Tone: analytical, concerned.
The Times (London) / The Telegraph: The Telegraph publishes Trump’s remarks about Starmer: “He’s no Churchill.” The Times analyzes the Labour prime minister’s humiliation. Both newspapers reproduce Trump’s threats to Spain. Tone: Atlanticist, critical of Downing Street’s management.
The Daily Beast / Politico / The Hill: The Daily Beast publishes the first detailed profile of Graham’s statements on Cuba. Politico notes that Spain was “the only European government to condemn the initial attacks.” The Hill reports on Republican senators’ warnings to Trump about the need for an AUMF. Fox News broadcasts Graham’s remarks on Cuba and his attack on the Sánchez government in their entirety.
Washington Times / The National Interest: The Washington Times quotes Trump in full: “Spain has absolutely nothing that we need.” The National Interest publishes an analysis of the Monroe Doctrine 2.0 and its implications for Latin America.
Continental European media
FAZ / Irish Times / Le Monde / El País (Spain): The FAZ analyzes Merz’s “gamble” in aligning itself with Trump. The Irish Times publishes an extensive profile titled “Merz abandons Germany’s moral certainties.” Le Monde highlights the announcement by the Franco-German nuclear group. In Spain, El País leads its editorials in defense of Sánchez and Albares’s position, acting as a mouthpiece for the government and ignoring the real damage to Spanish national interests.
France 24 / EURONEWS / AFP: France 24 and AFP distribute Trump’s statement about Spain globally. EURONEWS reports on the Iranian foreign minister’s threat against any European military involvement. Tone: Informative, with prominent coverage of the transatlantic crisis.
Corriere della Sera (Milan): Publishes an interview with Zelensky about the peace negotiations. His tone expresses concern about the effect of the war with Iran on the Ukrainian front.
Gulf, Middle Eastern and Russian media
Al Jazeera / Al Arabiya / Gulf News UAE / Arab News / Times of Israel / Haaretz: Al Jazeera focuses its coverage on Iranian civilian casualties. Al Arabiya documents the damage in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Gulf News reports the reopening of Dubai’s markets. The Times of Israel and AFP report Trump’s threats to Spain. Haaretz reports on the deaths in Beit Shemesh. Israel Hayom supports the operation.
TASS/Russia Today: Systematic anti-Western narrative. They reproduce Putin’s condolences for Khamenei and Lavrov’s statement calling the operation an “illegal aggression.” Zero editorial credibility. Note that both RT and TASS highlight Spain’s position with satisfaction as an example of a “rift in NATO”—something that should give pause to those in Madrid who share the Kremlin’s trenches on this issue.
South China Morning Post/China Daily: Beijing condemns the attacks. The SCMP reports on the conversation between Wang Yi and Lavrov demanding a ceasefire. Tone: cautious, with an appeal to multilateralism. China is concerned about the impact of the Hormuz blockade, given that 84% of the crude oil transiting the strait is destined for Asian markets.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
| SCENARIO / RISK | LEVEL | TREND |
| US-Israeli-Iran military escalation (Middle East theater) | 🔴 STOP | ↑ Climbing |
| Closure of the Strait of Hormuz / global energy crisis | 🔴 STOP | ↑ Climbing |
| US-Spain rupture / bilateral defense agreement crisis | 🔴 STOP | ↑ Climbing |
| Crisis in the special relationship between the US and the UK | 🟠 MEDIUM-HIGH | ↑ Increasing |
| Reopening of borders with Lebanon / Hezbollah – Israel | 🔴 STOP | ↑ Climbing |
| Iran power vacuum / Supreme Leader succession | 🟠 MEDIUM-HIGH | ↑ Increasing |
| Chain regime change doctrine: Cuba as the next target | 🟠 MEDIUM-HIGH | ↑ Increasing |
| Global economic impact: oil, gas, financial markets | 🟠 MEDIUM-HIGH | ↑ Increasing |
| Transatlantic fracture due to unilateral US management. | 🟠 MEDIUM-HIGH | ↑ Increasing |
| Spain’s isolation within NATO | 🔴 STOP | ↑ Climbing |
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
There are moments in a country’s history when foreign policy ceases to be a matter for experts and becomes a mirror in which an entire nation sees itself as it truly is. Spain has just experienced one of those moments, and what the mirror reflects is anything but flattering.
The government of Pedro Sánchez and his Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares, have made the most damaging decision for Spanish national interests in defense and security since Spain’s return to NATO’s integrated command structure in 1997. Not only did they refuse to lend the Rota and Morón air bases for operations in support of the coalition fighting the terrorist regime in Tehran—the only government in the entire Atlantic Alliance to adopt this stance—but they also went so far as to physically expel from their territory the fifteen American tanker aircraft operating from Spanish soil. This is an unprecedented act in NATO’s history. An act that leaves Spain isolated from its allies, in the same rhetorical trench as Russia—which has enthusiastically celebrated the “rift in NATO”—and China.
Lindsey Graham has called it an “aberration.” The word is harsh, it’s public, and it comes from one of the most powerful senators in the Republican Party, someone who knows Spain and claims to have affection for the Spanish people. When Graham distinguishes between that people and “their current leadership,” he is making precisely the same diagnosis as those of us who have been warning for years that the Sánchez government’s foreign policy has lost its way. And when he expresses his hope that it is “a parenthesis, not the norm,” he is sending Spain a message of confidence in its capacity to correct course—when the government changes.
Albares has invoked the UN Charter as a legal shield for a decision that is, in reality, ideological in nature. The argument is weak for several reasons. First: neither France, nor Germany, nor the United Kingdom—countries with an international legal tradition as solid as, or even stronger than, Spain’s—went to such extremes. Second: the UN Security Council is structurally blocked by the Russian and Chinese vetoes, which makes invoking its authority in this context a pretext, not a principle. Third: the Iranian regime has murdered dissidents, financed Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism for decades, massacred its own citizens in 2025 and 2026, and built a nuclear program with the sole stated purpose of destroying Israel. The fact that the Sánchez government is “the only European government to condemn the initial attacks”—according to Politico—while Iranian terrorism was exporting death throughout the Gulf, says everything there is to say about the moral compass of those who govern today in La Moncloa.
And this isn’t just a moral issue. It’s about national interests. The Rota and Morón air bases represent the largest American investment in defense on Mediterranean European soil. The four Aegis destroyers based in Rota serve as the missile defense shield for Southern Europe. The Spanish-American Defense and Cooperation Agreement is being negotiated this year. Madrid has just arrived at the negotiating table, having expelled its allies in the midst of the crisis. Sánchez and Albares have mortgaged decades of strategic relations with the US to appease a radical left-wing electoral audience that applauds from the stands while the interests of all Spaniards are put on the line.
That said, and to be rigorous, let’s also point out what Trump and Graham are doing wrong. The threat to cut off all trade with Spain is a rhetorical exaggeration that contributes nothing constructive. Allies recover through institutional strength and private talks, not public ultimatums that reek of blackmail. And the euphoria of “on a roll” with which Graham announces that Cuba is next on the list should temper his enthusiasm with the lesson of Iraq in 2003: overthrowing a regime without first building the infrastructure for its successor is a strategic error that exacts a brutal toll that no amount of triumphalism can anticipate.
But let’s be clear: the primary responsibility for the diplomatic crisis between Spain and the United States lies entirely with the Sánchez-Albares government. Trump is reacting. Sánchez has acted. That difference is significant. Graham is right: let’s hope this is just a temporary setback. Aristotle reminded us that prudence is the cardinal virtue of a ruler. What the Spanish government has demonstrated this week is precisely the opposite.