Spain Stands Up: Toward the Internationalization of 'No a la Guerra'

In a move that has sent shockwaves from Washington to Tel Aviv, passing through Berlin and Ankara, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez has positioned Spain as the primary European holdout against the escalating military conflict in Iran. Invoking the ghost of protests against the 2003 Iraq War, Sánchez’s government has blocked the United States from using Spanish military bases at Rota and Morón de la Frontera to bomb Iran—a decision that has triggered threats of a trade embargo from US President Donald Trump.

Sánchez has provided a three-fold argument against the war: that it is contrary to international law, unethical, and catastrophic for the world. He is simultaneously presenting himself as a courageous politician whose principles transcend any fear of US retaliation and a pragmatist who wishes to avoid the negative consequences of the war, from economic disaster to Islamist terrorism.

No a la Guerra captures this narrative in a way that resonates strongly not only in the minds of Spaniards but across the world. Sánchez has satisfied an international demand to speak out against Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and put peace on the agenda. His government has broken a spiral of silence. Can it stir support to stop the war?

The Domestic Front

Sánchez’s predecessor, José Maria Aznar, dragged Spain into the illegal and catastrophic Iraq War against the will of its people. That remains strongly embedded in the Spanish collective consciousness. The right-wing Partido Popular (PP) knows it lost the subsequent election because “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist, innocent people were killed en masse, there were jihadist terrorist attacks in Madrid as retaliation, and the party lied, blaming the domestic terrorist group ETA. Today’s No a la Guerra is a slap to the face of the PP and the far-right party Vox, which both support the US-Israeli war.

In opposing the Iranian war, the Spanish government is part of a wider movement that can unsettle the sense of helplessness that often grips Europe during Middle East conflicts.

While 80-90% of the Spanish population opposed the invasion of Iraq, almost 70% rejects the current war; 53% of the public supports the government’s stance on military bases. Just 23% supports the war. The right-wing opposition, and Podemos on the left, accuse Sánchez of hypocrisy for sending the frigate Cristóbal Colón to the United Kingdom’s military base in Cyprus. Per Britain’s claims for mobilizing forces and matériel, the Spanish government has responded that this is merely for protection rather than offensive purposes, in accordance with NATO’s doctrine of collective defense. Of course, such doctrines may be invoked quite differently should Iran attack US forces stationed in Europe.

Spain’s government must navigate the tension of geopolitical power relations while avoiding any mismatch between its discourse and practice, per the slaughter in Gaza. Some on the left also maintain that it is impossible to oppose the war effectively without sanctioning Israel and leaving NATO.

The right labels Sánchez as posturing ahead of a potential snap election. Yet the PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo has offered babbling, erratic responses that are themselves framed almost entirely through the lens of domestic partisan politics.

Feijóo also argues that Sánchez has abandoned Spain’s allies, jeopardizing the national interest. But the PP’s alignment with pro-war interests represents a regression to an outdated colonialist mindset of total servility. Much like during Aznar’s era, the PP is willing to kneel to US interests, sacrificing national sovereignty to serve as a submissive junior partner in a foreign military campaign. Sanchez’s performance is approved by 42% of the population; 19% support the opposition’s reaction.

The country’s main business association has expressed deep concern about the possibility of the US severing trade relations with Spain and placed responsibility on the Spanish government, urging it to ameliorate the situation.

The International Chessboard

The European Commission, Italy, France, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Malta, Turkey, and China have expressed solidarity with Spain in the face of Trump’s threats. However, France and Portugal, together with Germany, the UK, Greece, and Australia have adopted bellicose positions, and Canada is wavering. The President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has justified the attack on Iran and stated that the European Union must be prepared to “project power” as it can no longer rely on the “rules-based” system to protect the continent’s interests, while the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and the Vice-President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera have spoken up for international law.

Within Latin America, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Chile have advocated for adherence to international law and diplomatic resolution; conversely, Argentina has signaled explicit support for the US and Israeli governments.

Israel accuses Spain of failing to fulfill its obligations per NATO, while Trump, as ever the class bully, threatens to punish it. While remaining submissive to Trump, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reminded him that he cannot unilaterally block trade with Spain because it shares most-favored nation status with all European Union members. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte justifies the offensive against Iran at the same time as he defends Spain’s contribution to the organization.

Positions may change as the war evolves. Sánchez needs to go further and mobilize international opposition to the war. He must show it is possible and beneficial (including in electoral terms) to stand up to bullying. That will mean developing new alliances and favoring European strategic autonomy and sovereignty. Should the war go badly for US interests, Sánchez’s blend of ethical resistance and enlightened self-interest could encourage other leaders to join him.

For now, Spain is holding up a mirror to other European countries, challenging them to reflect on their diminished sovereignty. Merz looks weak by contrast when he claims that international law does not apply to Iran.

The US National Security Strategy frames the EU as an enemy to be destroyed, while DC and techno-authoritarians promote the far right. Positive coverage of the Spanish government’s stand in the international press can encourage European governments and citizens to confront Trump and Netanyahu. Significant majorities in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Britain oppose military intervention. It is about time democratic leaders understand the US not as an ally but an irresponsible actor seeking to weaponize Europe in its own interest. Iran’s democratic opposition needs peaceful conditions, as opposed to bombs. And the violence that the regime uses to deter dissent and seek internal cohesion against the external enemy. The country’s democratization must be accompanied by democratization and pacification across the globe, especially the United States.

A "No a la Guerra" placard is carried during a Women's Day demonstration in Madrid, Spain. (Photo by Joan Pedro-Carañana)

Building a New Spirit of the Times: Will the People Rise for Peace?

In opposing the Iranian war, the Spanish government is part of a wider movement that can unsettle the sense of helplessness that often grips Europe during Middle East conflicts. Per 2003’s invasion of Iraq, grassroots popular culture is playing a key role in expressing peaceful solidarity.

A Turkish news anchor moved audiences by thanking Spain—in Spanish—for being “on the right side of history” and “representing the common consciousness of humanity,” while a video of Turkish football fans passionately singing the pasodoble España Cañí has become viral; a surreal display of cultural support. Other viral videos feature a skilled Palestinian skater holding a Spanish flag and a Japanese influencer advocating for Spanish products in response to Trump’s threat.

Peace has a chance should the US people rise decidedly against the war. Spain has paved the way for citizens around the world.

Peace and democracy require symbolic triumphs that bring binding affects to the people and joy to the collective political body. Believing that “yes, we can” is a necessary step to the realization of objectives. As Susan Sarandon said in cinema’s recent Goya Awards, “Silence is very dangerous.” When Sánchez broke the silence of world leaders, the possibility of resistance turning viral emerged: “In a place where you feel repression and censorship, to see Spain come forward with such a strong voice and moral clarity is so important to us, the United States; it makes you feel less alone and that there is hope.”

Peace Needs US Citizens

The US and Israel seem to be losing the battle of international public opinion, but that’s not enough: Authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Netanyahu act through force more than consensus in the international arena. Nevertheless, they rely on their own voters. Although 93% of Israeli Jews and 26% of Israeli Arabs support the war, as of early March, 44% of US citizens support the war and 56% oppose it. Despite Trump’s electoral promise of “no war,” only 15% of his supporters oppose the attacks on Iran, but support for Trump and the war are based on a cult of personality and spectacular demonstrations of force and victory in short wars with few national casualties. Some notable isolationist and antisemitic conservatives have already broken with him over Iran.

Although the figures vary depending on the survey, support for the strikes is far lower than that at the beginnings of previous wars. As ever, support for military action may wane as the economic and human costs of war increase. International-relations mavens are unified in their skepticism. While current opposition remains insufficient to halt the conflict, it highlights a decline in President Trump’s support that could prove decisive in the November midterm elections. However, given the catastrophic consequences of the war, an electoral shift may come too late. Because of the illegal nature of the strikes and the bypassing of congressional approval, it may be time to pursue impeachment based on executive overreach and the violation of international law, albeit with no prospect of conviction.

The role of peace communication is to engage with Trump’s supporters: listening to them, empathizing where possible, sharing information, and showing how they are negatively affected by the war.

Peace has a chance should the US people rise decidedly against the war. Spain has paved the way for citizens around the world. But peace communication should not merely be refusal; it should mobilize diplomacy, internationalism, and interculturality. Peace communication must encourage others to agree, not push them away, and do so in the name of mutual transformation. That depends on a shared will, creativity, and care for humanity.