By Gustavo de Arístegui,
March 5, 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The war between the United States and Iran, unleashed on February 28 with the start of Operation Epic Fury, enters its fifth day with a dramatic expansion of the conflict into the Indian Ocean and NATO airspace. A US submarine sank the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena off the coast of Sri Lanka, killing at least 87 people, in the first torpedo sinking of an enemy vessel since World War II. Simultaneously, NATO air defense systems intercepted an Iranian ballistic missile flying over Turkish airspace, presumably destined for allied bases in Cyprus. In Tehran, the Assembly of Experts—under pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—appears to have chosen the son of the late Supreme Leader, Mukhta Khamenei, as his successor, in a move that signals the regime’s continuity and its determination to continue fighting. In Washington, the Senate rejected the Democratic resolution on war powers by a vote of 53 to 47. And in Madrid, Pedro Sánchez’s social-communist government staged an unprecedented international embarrassment: accused by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt of having privately yielded to American pressure regarding the use of Spanish bases, while publicly denying any such changes. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively blocked, and oil prices remain at alarming levels. In short, the world is witnessing the greatest geopolitical crisis of the post-Cold War era.
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. American submarine sinks Iranian frigate Iris Dena off Sri Lanka: first submarine combat action since World War II
Facts
A U.S. Navy nuclear-powered attack submarine launched a large-caliber MK-48 torpedo at the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena—the flagship of the Iranian Navy—in international waters of the Indian Ocean, 40 nautical miles south of Galle, on the southern coast of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Navy recovered 87 bodies and rescued 32 survivors from the ship, which had a crew of 180. Secretary of Defense (Secretary of War, according to the Trump Administration’s new terminology) Pete Hegseth confirmed this at a press conference at the Pentagon with a phrase that will go down in history: “An American submarine sank an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters. Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Silent death.” This is the second torpedo sinking of an enemy vessel since World War II; the first was the sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands War. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), stated that U.S. forces have sunk more than 20 Iranian vessels , including a submarine, since the start of Operation Epic Fury on February 28. The IRIS Dena was returning from the Milan international naval exercises , organized by the Indian Navy in the Bay of Bengal, when it was intercepted and destroyed.
Implications
The extension of the conflict to the Indian Ocean—historically the area of operations for the U.S. Seventh Fleet—represents an escalation of global strategic scope unprecedented in decades. Washington has demonstrated that Iran has no safe haven in any ocean in the world: the IRIS Dena was hit thousands of miles from the original theater of operations, brutally illustrating American naval supremacy and the futility of any Iranian attempt to disperse or secure its military assets. Secretary of War (formerly Department of Defense) Pete Hegseth left no doubt about the state of the Iranian navy: “out of shape, decimated, destroyed, defeated.” The near-total annihilation of the navy of the ayatollahs’ jihadist oligarchy—including its naval force and Revolutionary Guard—eliminates one of the pillars of the regime’s overseas projection capabilities. The scene of Iranian sailors’ bodies being unloaded onto trucks at the De Gaulle Hospital in Sri Lanka is an image the Tehran regime cannot hide from its own population.
Perspectives and scenarios
The U.S. Central Command has announced that it will continue attacking Iranian naval infrastructure and military capabilities over the next 24 to 48 hours. The next likely targets include missile and drone launch sites, weapons factories, Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia bases, as well as regime headquarters—the Assembly of Experts, the Guardian Council—and any high-ranking officials who can be located. As is customary in these reports, belonging to the inner circle of the Tehran regime has become the most dangerous profession on the planet. The U.S. Navy is considering resuming tanker escorts through the Strait of Hormuz as soon as the operational situation allows, according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright, speaking on Fox News.
2. NATO intercepts an Iranian ballistic missile in Turkish airspace: the Alliance’s first defensive action against Iran
Facts
NATO air and missile defense assets (it was actually Spanish batteries that shot it down) deployed in the eastern Mediterranean intercepted and destroyed an Iranian ballistic missile crossing Iraqi and Syrian airspace en route to Turkey. The Turkish Ministry of Defense confirmed the incident and stated that the wreckage of the interceptor fell in Hatay province, in the south of the country, without causing any casualties. Turkey summoned the Iranian ambassador, and its Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, called his counterpart Abbas Araghchi to convey Ankara’s protest. NATO condemned the attack through its spokesperson, Allison Hart, reaffirming the strength of its deterrence and defense posture. Secretary General Hegseth ruled out the possibility that the incident triggered Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Anonymous Turkish sources indicated that the missile may have been aimed at the British Royal Air Force base in Akrotiri (Cyprus) — already hit by Hezbollah drones on March 2 — and that it may have deviated from its trajectory.
Implications
This is the first time since the start of Operation Epic Fury that the territory of a NATO member state has been hit by Iranian fire, representing an escalation of extraordinary gravity. Although Turkey has thus far avoided being drawn into the conflict—maintaining a position of calling for de-escalation—the fact that Iran, whether intentionally or accidentally, launched ballistic missiles into Turkish airspace presents Ankara with an extremely complex dilemma. President Erdoğan declared that Turkey will take “all necessary measures” to defend its territory “without hesitation.” The incident also demonstrates that NATO’s defenses on the eastern flank—reinforced since the beginning of the conflict—functioned effectively, serving as a warning to Tehran about the limits of their reach. The proximity of the interceptor’s impact point to Incirlik Air Base, where American tactical nuclear weapons are stored, adds a further dimension of strategic alarm.
Perspectives and scenarios
Turkey could invoke Article 4 of the Washington Treaty—consultations between allies in the event of a threat to territorial integrity—without resorting to Article 5. The key lies in whether the missile was fired intentionally or the result of a navigational error. If the trajectory was aimed at Cyprus, as Turkish sources suggest, this would indicate that Iran is attacking British bases without regard for the consequences for its Mediterranean allies. In any case, the precedent has been set: the war with Iran has reached the Atlantic Alliance.
3. Mukhta Khamenei, favorite to succeed his father: The Revolutionary Guard imposes its candidate
Facts
According to Iranian sources cited by Iran International and confirmed by several Western news outlets, the Assembly of Experts—under direct pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—has elected or is about to formally appoint Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, the second son of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the new Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian Consulate General in Mumbai has denied this, but multiple sources with access to the deliberative process indicate that the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exerted significant pressure on the assembled clerics to impose the “dynastic” candidate. Mojtaba has never held public office nor run for any election, but he has effectively managed the Office of the Supreme Leader for years, cultivating deep ties with the IRGC and the Basij militia. His wife, son, and mother were killed in the February 28 attacks. He holds the rank of Hojatoleslam—an intermediate level in the Shiite clerical hierarchy, well below the Grand Ayatollah with Marja required to be considered for the position—but the precedent of his father, who was also not Grand Ayatollah when he was appointed in 1989, suggests that they will manipulate the constitution to promote three ranks up to the top of Imanite Shiism by twisting the rules to accommodate him.
Implications
If Mojtaba’s appointment is confirmed, the message sent to the world is unequivocal: the ayatollahs’ terrorist regime has no intention whatsoever of yielding to the American and Israeli military campaign, and is choosing as its successor the man most closely linked to the most fanatical and violent sectors of the system. Mojtaba Khamenei has been held responsible for the repression of the 2009 Green Movement protests, the brutal suppression of the 2022 demonstrations—in which thousands died—and the massacres of January 2026. Fueled by deep hatred for those who killed his father, his wife, and his son, he would represent an even more radicalized and personally vindictive version of Khomeiniism. The degree of brutal indoctrination of the sectors that support him—the IRGC and Basij—makes them especially dangerous: they are fanaticisms that feed on revenge and operate according to no rational cost-benefit logic. Israel has warned through its Defense Minister, Israel Katz, that whoever is appointed as Iran’s new supreme leader automatically becomes a target for elimination.
Perspectives and scenarios
The dynastic succession, imposed by the IRGC outside the established constitutional process—given that formally convening the Assembly of Experts in the midst of war is impossible—reveals the true nature of the regime: a jihadist oligarchy in which military power determines political legitimacy. Reform from within is impossible. If confirmed, Mojtaba’s appointment rules out any possibility of short-term negotiations and signals a continuation of the conflict.
4. The Spanish embarrassment: Leavitt exposes Albares live on air
Facts
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Spain had “heard the president’s message loud and clear” and that “in the last few hours they have agreed to cooperate with the U.S. military.” The statement was immediately refuted by Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, who “categorically” denied any change in the Sánchez government’s position. “The Spanish government’s position on the war in the Middle East, the bombing of Iran, and the use of our bases has not changed one iota,” Albares told Cadena SER radio. The incident comes days after Trump threatened to “cut off all trade with Spain” following Madrid’s refusal to allow the use of the joint bases in southern Spain—Rota and Morón—for operations not authorized by the UN Charter. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was even more direct: “The Spanish have put American lives at risk.”
Implications
The episode starkly portrays the double life of Pedro Sánchez’s social-communist government: public posturing before its radical left-wing electorate, and silent surrender in private to American pressure. The White House would not have declared that Spain had “agreed to cooperate” if there hadn’t been some contact or signal to that effect from the Spanish authorities. The fact that Albares rushed to deny it on the radio instead of issuing a calm, official statement speaks volumes about the ministry’s panic at the exposure of its double game. It is the inevitable consequence of a foreign policy built on performative populism: grand pronouncements are made before the cameras—”we will not be complicit in anything bad for the world”—while concessions are negotiated behind closed doors, concessions that are then refused to acknowledge when exposed. Sánchez has placed Spain in a shameful position of isolation within NATO, alienating the most important ally in the history of Spanish democracy, and has, to top it all off, been exposed internationally. Secretary Bessent’s assessment—that the Spanish attitude put American lives at risk—is of an institutional gravity that should generate a major political debate in Spain and which, predictably, the pro-government press will try to silence.
Perspectives and scenarios
Trump’s trade threat against Spain opens a front of real economic risk. Spain is a member of the European Union, which negotiates trade on behalf of all 27 member states, but the American administration has made it clear that it will explore every instrument at its disposal. Spanish employers’ associations—CEOE, CEPYME, and ATA—have already expressed their alarm. The Sánchez government urgently needs to restore its credibility with Washington without losing face with its far-left coalition government, a squaring of the circle that perfectly reflects the structural incoherence of its foreign policy.
5. The United States Senate rejects the Democratic war powers resolution: 53-47
Facts
The U.S. Senate voted 53-47 against advancing the war powers resolution introduced by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and co-sponsored by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. The resolution would have required President Trump to withdraw U.S. military forces from hostilities against Iran without express authorization from Congress, under the War Powers Act of 1973. The only Democrat to vote against was John Fetterman of Pennsylvania; the only Republican to vote in favor was Rand Paul. Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer appealed to public weariness with “endless wars in the Middle East,” while Republican Senator John Barrasso accused Democrats of “preferring to obstruct Donald Trump rather than destroy the Iranian nuclear program.” The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a similar resolution on Thursday.
Implications
The outcome of the vote strengthens President Trump’s position to continue Operation Epic Fury without immediate legislative interference. It is significant, though not surprising, that a large part of the Democratic wing—and especially its far-left and radical squad led by Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, the latter two supporters of Hamas—is engaging in political opportunism, attempting to capitalize on a war they themselves would have supported had it been ordered by a Democratic administration. It is worth remembering that during Obama’s two presidencies, the number of extrajudicial drone killings reached an all-time high in U.S. history, and no one on the left in general, nor in the Democratic Party in particular, once invoked the need for a war powers resolution. Libya was bombed without congressional authorization. Syria was the scene of shameful strategic about-faces. The silence then contrasts sharply with the clamor now, revealing that the debate is not constitutional, but purely about electoral tactics. The pragmatic abstention of Senator Susan Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski —both moderates who voted against the resolution, albeit with ‘notes of caution’— indicates that the Republican consensus on the conflict could erode if the war drags on or if there is a deployment of ground troops.
Perspectives and scenarios
Secretary Hegseth has indicated that the war could last eight weeks, a considerably longer timeframe than initially anticipated. The key to American politics lies in whether the Republican coalition can remain united if the human and economic costs escalate. The 2026 midterm elections are beginning to cast a shadow over the debate.
6. Hormuz Strait crisis and escalating energy prices: US Navy prepares tanker escorts
Facts
The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively blocked. Tanker traffic has dwindled to a minimum: of the 24 daily tanker transits recorded in January, only four crossed the strait on March 1, three of them flying the Iranian flag. More than 200 tankers and liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers remain anchored in the Gulf, awaiting developments. The world’s leading marine insurers—Gard, Skuld, NorthStandard, and the London P&I Club—have withdrawn war risk coverage for vessels operating in the Persian Gulf, which is functionally equivalent to closing the strait. President Trump announced on Tuesday that the U.S. government will provide political risk insurance through the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and that the U.S. Navy will escort tankers as soon as possible. Energy Secretary Chris Wright clarified on Fox News that the U.S. Navy is “focused on the conflict for now.” Brent crude prices are hovering around $82 a barrel. Goldman Sachs has revised its second-quarter forecast upward by $10. If the lockdown lasts for five weeks, analysts warn the price could exceed $100.
Implications
The naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian navy have been rendered virtually inoperable: twelve warships sunk, an undetermined number of fast patrol boats destroyed, an air force virtually annihilated, and air defenses eliminated. The Iranian navy is no longer “a factor,” in Hegseth’s own words. The logical corollary is that, once operational security is restored in the waters of the strait, the US Navy will be able to resume escorted transits and normalize the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf to world markets. However, the process will take days or weeks. In the meantime, the global economy is absorbing the impact: natural gas prices in Europe nearly doubled in 48 hours before moderating slightly following reports of Iranian contacts to explore terms for ending the conflict. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz —which channels 20% of the world’s oil, 30% of European LNG and 16% of global refined products— is the biggest energy shock since the 1973 crisis.
Perspectives and scenarios
The impact on the monetary policy of major central banks—including the US Federal Reserve—is unavoidable: energy prices are driving up inflation and reducing the scope for interest rate cuts. Iraq has begun to halt operations at the Rumaila oil field due to a lack of storage capacity, as tankers are unable to leave. Paradoxically, Russia is improving its competitive position in global crude oil markets: India and China have incentives to increase their dependence on Russian oil. If the conflict continues, the redistributive effect of global energy power could work in Moscow’s favor, adding a far-reaching geopolitical dimension to the crisis.
III. MEDIA RACK
| NEW YORK TIMES | Comprehensive coverage of Operation Epic Fury: It details the three-phase target list drawn up by military planners. It highlights that the generals designed the campaign wondering if Trump would want to continue beyond the first 100 hours. Now they are considering a much longer list of lower-priority targets: thousands of bases, factories, and headquarters linked to the Basij, with the aim of either breaking the regime or sparking a popular uprising. |
| WASHINGTON POST | Extensive coverage of the sinking of the IRIS Dena, with 87 bodies recovered by the Sri Lankan navy. Separately, a report on Mokhta Khamenei as the leading candidate to succeed him. Analysis of the Senate vote and its constitutional significance. Follow-up on the diplomatic tensions between Spain and the United States. |
| FINANCIAL TIMES | Dominant economic focus: the Strait of Hormuz crisis and its consequences for oil and gas markets. Goldman Sachs raises price forecast. Analysis of marine insurance policies withdrawn by major P&I (Protection & Indemnity) clubs. Warning about the impact on central bank interest rate policy. |
| THE ECONOMIST | Strategic analysis of the central question: Will Trump press on or stop? The global economy suffers a major blow with rising energy prices, and regional American allies are left without missile interceptors. Uncertainty surrounds the exit strategy. |
| THE TIMES (London) | Chronicle of the sinking of the IRIS Dena. Analysis of the NATO-Iran crisis following the missile strike on Türkiye. Questions about whether Ankara will invoke Article 4 or Article 5. |
| THE TELEGRAPH | Editorial favorable to the American position. Criticism of the indecisive European allies. Follow-up on RAF operations in Akrotiri and the deployment of HMS Dragon in the eastern Mediterranean. |
| THE GUARDIAN | A critical perspective on the conflict. Humanizing the Iranian victims of the sinking off Sri Lanka. Coverage of the protests in Spain against the American-Israeli intervention in Iran. |
| LE MONDE | Analysis of European divisions regarding the Iranian conflict. France defends a stance of ‘de-escalation and diplomacy’. Coverage of the carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Mediterranean. The Spanish position as a unique case within the EU. |
| LE FIGARO | Cautious editorial supporting Operation Epic Fury. Analysis of the implications of the Iranian succession. Coverage of the US Senate vote. |
| FACE / THE WEDGE | Geopolitical analysis of the impact on German and European energy security. Germany imports 30% of its jet fuel via the Strait of Hormuz. Alarm over rising natural gas prices. Coverage of the Iranian missile strike over Turkey and its consequences for NATO. |
| CORRIERE DELLA SERA | Italy awaits the energy impact. Coverage of the sinking of the IRIS Dena. Editorial on the risks of Mediterranean escalation. |
| AL JAZEERA | Critical coverage of American and Israeli operations. Humanizing the victims of the sinking off Sri Lanka. Denouncing the coalition’s ‘impunity’. Coverage of protests in Iran and the Arab world. |
| AL ARABIYA / ASHARQ AL AWSAT | Gulf media outlets, more aligned with Riyadh, cautiously reflect on the destruction of Iran’s naval capabilities as a regional security asset. Saudi Arabia is exploring alternative routes to the Strait of Gibraltar through the Red Sea for its oil exports. |
| ISRAEL HAYOM / JERUSALEM POST | Moderate enthusiasm for the campaign’s progress. Coverage of Minister Katz’s threat to Khamenei’s successor. Analysis of Iran’s resistance with missiles and drones despite the destruction of its air force. |
| HAARETZ | Israeli critical perspective. Questions about the exit strategy. Concern over the possible appointment of Mukhta Khamenei, more hardline than his father. |
| HÜRRIYET | Turkish coverage of the Iranian ballistic missile incident. Analysis of Ankara’s dilemma: NATO vs. neutrality. Erdogan calls for de-escalation while warning that Türkiye will defend its territory. |
| REUTERS / AP / AFP | Reference agencies for verified facts: data on the sinking of the IRIS Dena (87 dead, 32 survivors), Senate vote (47-53), statements by Hegseth, Leavitt and Albares, crude oil prices, maritime traffic data in Hormuz. |
| TASS / RUSSIA TODAY | Kremlin propaganda coverage that emphasizes ‘American chaos’ and the ‘failure’ of Western strategy. Significant silence on Iranian losses. Highlights Sánchez’s statements against the attack as an example of ‘European resilience’. |
| SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST / CHINA DAILY | Beijing is watching the conflict with concern due to its dependence on Gulf oil. China imports 40% of its crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz. This analysis examines the consequences for China’s energy routes and the potential increase in its reliance on Russian crude. |
| TIMES OF INDIA / HINDUSTAN TIMES | India, which hosted the IRIS Dena for naval exercises just two weeks before its sinking, is navigating uneasily between its relationship with Iran and its growing strategic partnership with the US. New Delhi has called on its citizens to leave Iran. |
| YOMIURI SHIMBUN / TOKYO TIMES | Japan, which relies on Gulf oil for 90% of its energy needs, is following the conflict with extreme alarm. The Tokyo government is studying emergency energy options. Coverage of the maritime crisis and its consequences for the Japanese economy. |
| KYIV POST / KYIV INDEPENDENT | Ukraine is observing the conflict with strategic interest: the war with Iran diverts American and Western resources, while also weakening one of Russia’s main arms suppliers. Monitoring Iran-Russia ties in the context of the war in Ukraine. |
| CNN / BBC | 24-hour coverage of the conflict. CNN with access to Pentagon sources. BBC with a correspondent in Galle, Sri Lanka, covering the arrival of Iranian bodies. Both highlight the historical significance of the first submarine sinking since WWII. |
| FOX NEWS | Favorable coverage of the Trump administration. Interviews with Hegseth and Wright. Analysis of the sinking of the IRIS Dena as a show of force. Criticism of the Democrats for the war powers resolution. |
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
| 🔴 | MAXIMUM RISK | Regional escalation of the Iran-US/Israel conflict. Extension of the theater of operations to the Indian Ocean and NATO airspace over Turkey. Possible invocation of Article 5 if Ankara determines the missile was intentional. Designation of Mukhta Khamenei as a sign of the regime’s refusal to surrender. |
| 🔴 | MAXIMUM RISK | Global energy crisis. De facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Crude oil prices at risk of exceeding $100 if the blockade continues. Inflationary impact on Western economies. Strategic benefit for Russia. |
| 🟠 | HIGH RISK | Iranian succession: The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei under pressure from the IRGC outside the constitutional process reveals the militarization of the regime and excludes any negotiated solution in the short term. |
| 🟠 | HIGH RISK | Atlantic fracture. Spain’s position, the silence of some European allies, and Washington’s trade pressure are creating tensions within NATO at a critical moment. |
| 🟡 | MODERATE RISK | Internal resistance in the US. The war powers resolution was defeated, but legislative debate and public opinion —mostly against the conflict according to polls— will put pressure on the administration if the war lasts beyond eight weeks. |
| 🟡 | MODERATE RISK | Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen have re-engaged. Drone attacks have targeted allied bases in Cyprus (Akrotiri). Iranian proxies have reactivated their operations, adding further fronts to the conflict. |
| 🟢 | RISK CONTENT | Iran’s naval and air capabilities have been virtually destroyed. Its air defenses have been eliminated. The operational initiative now rests entirely with the American-Israeli side. The regime has no conventional means to effectively counterattack. |
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Five days of war have been enough for Operation Epic Fury to radically change the strategic map of the Middle East, but also to reveal with surgical clarity the moral failings and structural contradictions of some of our allies and, in particular, the government of Spain.
Let’s start with what matters. The sinking of the frigate IRIS Dena off Sri Lanka—the first submarine torpedo attack since World War II—is not just another episode in this war: it is the symbol of its reach. Admiral Cooper summed it up with a brutal clarity: ‘There is not a single Iranian vessel underway in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, or the Gulf of Oman. And we will not stop.’ The jihadist regime of the ayatollahs—a despotic oligarchy built on fanaticism, terror, and the export of violence through its proxies—had for decades hidden a substantial part of its power of intimidation behind its naval and air capabilities. Both have been destroyed. That does not mean the regime has fallen, far from it. But it has been reduced to what it always was in its essence: a fanatical power structure sustained by internal fear, the petrodollars of scandal, the export of terror and the brutality of the Revolutionary Guard and other repressive apparatuses.
The likely appointment of Mukhta Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader is, in this sense, a starkly revealing revelation. The regime, under unprecedented military pressure, responds by choosing—under duress from the IRGC—the son of the slain Leader of the Revolution, a man personally motivated by revenge and even more radicalized than his father in his defense of the system. There is no sign of openness, no sign of genuine negotiation. There is a fanaticism that feeds on martyrdom and, far from breaking, hardens. Those who still believe that military pressure will produce a rational capitulation should carefully study the sociology of political jihadism: these men do not operate according to any conventional utilitarian framework. In their intellectual categories, dying in holy war is a reward, not a punishment.
The Iranian ballistic missile intercepted over Turkish airspace adds another layer of alarm. That Iran, in the midst of dismantling its military capabilities, would decide—or be unable to prevent—the launch of a projectile that flew over Iraq and Syria before being shot down over Hatay province reveals either tactical desperation leading to strategic error, or a deliberate intention to expand the conflict beyond its traditional regional borders. In either case, the consequences for the security of NATO’s southern flank are extremely serious, and Ankara’s composure—which has not invoked Article 5 and is calling for de-escalation—should not be mistaken for weakness: Turkey is carefully measuring its steps with the prudence of someone who knows that its geographical position makes it a decisive player in any future scenario.
And now Spain. There are no words harsh enough to describe the actions of Pedro Sánchez’s government and, in particular, his Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares. The pattern is too familiar to be surprising, but it never ceases to be shameful: fiery rhetoric about principles before the domestic radical left, and strategic cowardice as soon as real pressure arises. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wasn’t just making empty pronouncements when she told the world that Spain had “agreed to cooperate with the American armed forces.” No one in the official communications department of the world’s leading power risks their credibility with a statement of that magnitude without any basis. And Treasury Secretary Bessent was even more direct: the Spanish put American lives at risk. That’s not a diplomatic complaint; it’s a serious accusation.
Albares rushed to a friendly radio station to categorically deny it. There was no official appearance, no formal statement to Congress, no summons of ambassadors. There was only the hasty panic of someone caught red-handed, scrambling for the quickest alibi. The result is the worst possible scenario: Spain appears to Washington as an unreliable ally secretly negotiating what it publicly denies; and it appears to its own far-left electorate as a government yielding to American pressure while feigning resistance. The ridicule is absolute, and the damage to Spanish diplomatic credibility is lasting.
The scandal surrounding Spain’s stance has an additional dimension that deserves to be emphasized. Under the 1988 bilateral treaty with the United States, as updated in its latest versions, Spain hosts the joint bases of Rota and Morón, from which NATO operates in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. For the government of a NATO member country—which failed to meet its commitment to spending 2% of its GDP on defense until public embarrassment forced it to reconsider—to impose conditions on the use of these facilities in a military operation decided upon by the Alliance’s main ally is an attitude that borders on incompatibility with the founding commitments of the Washington Treaty. Those of us who have always defended uncompromising Atlanticism know perfectly well that the price of collective security is not paid only when it suits us.
Regarding the US Senate vote, the defeat of the Democratic war powers resolution was both predictable and justified. The so-called Democratic Socialists of America and the Squad—the most radical wing of the Democratic Party, that gallery of populists including figures like Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib—practice a selective outrage that cannot withstand even the most basic historical scrutiny. No one in those ranks introduced war powers resolutions when Obama ordered the largest program of extrajudicial drone killings in US history. No one questioned the bombing of Libya without congressional authorization in 2011. No one demanded accountability for the strategic flip-flops in Syria that left thousands of civilians dead. Consistency of principles is not part of the American identity left’s playbook. What is part of it is the instrumentalization of any conflict as a weapon to be used against the political adversary of the moment. Senator Fetterman (who survived a stroke in the middle of the election campaign) was the only Democrat who had the courage to vote against it; he deserves recognition that his fellow Democrats will deny him.
Looking ahead, the question The Economist aptly poses is the one all serious analysts are asking: Will Trump double down, or will he leave the job unfinished? The destruction of most of Iran’s conventional military capabilities, with the exception of missiles and drones, is a reality. But the regime remains, chooses an even more fanatical successor, and the global economy absorbs a major energy shock. The pressure on regional allies, who could be left without missile interceptors, is real. And American public opinion, largely opposed to the conflict according to polls, is a political variable that no administration can indefinitely ignore. History teaches us—Burke, Machiavelli, Clausewitz—that no war ends exactly as those who start it had planned. The virtue of a statesman lies not in anticipating every conceivable event, but in being able to adapt strategy when reality demands revision. That is precisely the great challenge Trump faces.