WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the United States to punish NATO allies it believes failed to support US operations in the war with Iran , including suspending Spain from the alliance and reviewing the US position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands, a US official told Reuters. The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ perceived reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights – known as ABO – for the Iran war, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
Reuters reports on internal discussions within the US Department of Defense (Pentagon) regarding the Spain and Iran conflict. These reports are about the US exploring political and diplomatic means of pressure against allies that are not considered to be providing sufficient support in a specific conflict.
The Reuters telegram draws attention to a beleaguered Trump who needs to find scapegoats for the situation in Hormuz,
Spain’s refusal to provide military bases (such as Rota and Morón) and airspace for US operations against Iran in 2026 is based on a combination of international law principles and political values.
See also Lindmark’s analyses:
Background
- International law principle: The Spanish government, under Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, has consistently argued that US military actions against Iran are unilateral and in violation of international law. Spain has therefore refused to consent to the use of its infrastructure or territory for what it considers an illegal war.
- “No to war”: Sánchez has formulated Spain’s line as a principled stance, summarized as “No to the war.” The government has expressed that they do not want to be complicit in a conflict that they consider unjust and which they fear will lead to regional instability and danger to civilians.
- National sovereignty: Although the bases are shared by the US and Spain, they are formally under Spanish command. Spain has emphasized its right to refuse their use for operations not covered by the agreements or that violate the UN Charter.
- Political pressure: Spain has also had a more independent foreign policy line on other issues (e.g. criticism of the war in Gaza and opposition to the demand for 5% of GDP in defense spending). Sánchez has emphasized that Spain should not act out of fear of reprisals or “sell out” its values to appease US demands.
The bottom line is that Spain is not meeting the target of preventive investments equivalent to 2% of GDP. Nor is it meeting the future 5% target.
The decision has led to a clear rift in NATO and tense relations with Washington, where President Trump has threatened, among other things, trade sanctions in response to what he considers a lack of alliance loyalty.
NATO’s founding pillars
The United States cannot unilaterally exclude Spain (or any other member state) from NATO. According to NATO regulations:
- No expulsion mechanism: The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) does not contain any provisions for suspending or expelling a member state. The organization is built on the principle of consensus, meaning that all decisions of significance require unanimity among all member states.
- Diplomatic process: Conflicts and disagreements between members are handled through diplomacy and political pressure within the North Atlantic Council, not by excluding individual members.
- The role of the United States: Although the United States is the dominant military power in the alliance, this does not give it the legal authority to unilaterally change the membership of other countries. Any changes to the composition of the alliance require the agreement of the other members.
It is important to distinguish between internal US policy considerations and what is actually legally possible within the NATO framework. While there is political frustration in Washington, it does not change the basic statutes of the NATO treaty, which require the common consent of member states for any major changes.
Trump’s trump card
There are no legal mechanisms within NATO to exclude or formally “punish” a member state. However, the United States, as the alliance’s dominant military power and through its bilateral agreements, has several practical and political leverage that can be used to isolate or disadvantage Spain.
Based on the current situation in spring 2026, the following are the types of measures that the United States is discussing or already using:
1. Military Redeployment and Base Policy
This is the most concrete tool. Since Spain has denied the US the use of the air bases in Rota and Morón de la Frontera for operations against Iran, the US has already been forced to move resources (for example, tanker aircraft).
- Strategic relocation: The US could permanently relocate US military personnel and equipment from Spanish bases to other allied countries that are considered more “loyal” or cooperative. This would hurt Spain’s economy (which benefits from the presence of the bases) and reduce the country’s strategic relevance to the US.
- Reduced military integration: The US could downgrade Spain’s access to joint NATO intelligence flows or limit participation in specific military exercises and technology collaborations.
2. Economic and trade policy pressures
The United States has historically shown that it can use trade policy as a weapon against allies who do not follow its foreign policy line.
- Tariffs and import quotas: The US could impose targeted tariffs on Spanish exports. Although this is often done under the guise of trade disputes (e.g. steel, aluminum or food), the timing could be used to put political pressure on Madrid.
- Export restrictions: The United States may restrict the export of defense equipment or high-tech equipment to Spain, affecting the capabilities of the Spanish defense industry.
3. Diplomatic isolation
The United States can use its weight within NATO and international forums to marginalize Spain politically.
- Influence on NATO decision-making: Although the US cannot vote out Spain, it can steer informal discussions and priorities in the NATO Council to make Spain a political outsider.
- “Cold hand” diplomacy: By deliberately avoiding high-level bilateral meetings with the Spanish government or publicly criticizing Spain’s stance, the United States could undermine trust in Spain among other allies.
4. Political support for domestic opposition
There have been reports that the current US administration is actively trying to influence political trends in Europe, including in Spain.
- Support for the opposition: By providing political or rhetorical support to Spanish parties that are more favorable to the US line, the US can try to create internal pressure on the incumbent Spanish government to change its foreign policy direction.
These measures are not based on NATO rules, but on the role of the United States as a single great power . They exploit the asymmetry in the power relationship between the United States and the other member states. Spain finds itself in a difficult balancing act where it wants to maintain its alliance loyalty and principles of international law while at the same time risking being subject to a comprehensive “punitive campaign” from Washington.
It is important to remember that these measures are often double-edged for the US – if they go too far, they risk further destabilizing NATO and weakening cohesion within the alliance, which could ultimately harm the US’s own interests in Europe.
International law
The question of whether the US war against Iran in 2026 is compatible with international law is the subject of extensive debate among legal experts, with the prevailing view being that the war does not meet the criteria of international law.
1. The prohibition against the use of force
According to the UN Charter, states are prohibited from using force against other states, with two clear exceptions:
- Self-defense: (Article 51) The right to defend oneself in the event of an armed attack.
- Mandate from the Security Council: That a country has received explicit approval from the UN Security Council to use military force.
Experts in international law and international organizations have pointed out that the US attacks do not meet these criteria. There is no mandate from the Security Council, and most independent legal experts do not believe that the US has been able to demonstrate that the attacks constituted a necessary and proportionate measure to avert an “imminent threat”, as required for the right of self-defense.
2. Arguments for and against
- Critics’ line (majority position): Over 100 international law experts have publicly warned that the attacks constitute a violation of the UN Charter. Many lawyers describe the war as an “act of aggression” or “war of aggression,” which is considered the most serious crime under international law. Serious questions have also been raised about war crimes in connection with the attacks on civilian infrastructure (such as power plants).
- US and Israeli Position: The US has attempted to justify its actions by claiming a right to “preventive self-defense.” It has argued that Iran posed an existential threat through its missile program and regional destabilization. Furthermore, some US officials have attempted to frame the conflict as a continuation of an already ongoing, protracted conflict, thus circumventing the requirement that each individual military operation must have an immediate legal basis.
3. International reactions
The international community has been divided:
- Persecution and criticism: UN Secretary-General António Guterres and a large number of countries have condemned the attacks.
- Division within the West: Opinions have diverged within the EU, but Spain has been one of the countries that has stood out by clearly condemning the unilateral military action as unlawful. Other European leaders have been more restrained, often citing the fear of criticizing allies in the midst of a burning crisis.
In summary, the broad academic and legal consensus is that the military campaign against Iran lacks a clear basis in international law. The justifications presented by the United States are considered by a majority of international law experts to be insufficient to legitimize the use of force under the UN framework.
International legal responsibilities of other NATO members
The question of whether other countries may provide air bases and airspace to a state waging a war of aggression (which is deemed unlawful under international law) is a central and complex legal question. The short answer is that it is highly controversial and likely a violation of international law .
1. Aiding and abetting an internationally unlawful act
Under international law, it is not only the state that carries out an unlawful use of force that can be held responsible. Another state that actively facilitates or enables the aggressor state to wage its illegal war can itself be guilty of aiding and abetting .
- State responsibility: Under international law (codified in the UN Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ), a state is responsible if it knowingly provides support or assistance to another state in committing an internationally wrongful act.
- Logistical support: Providing air bases, maintenance or airspace for military operations that are inherently illegal (e.g. a war of aggression) can be classified as providing such support. This means that the host country can be considered a co-party to the conflict and thus co-responsible for violations of the prohibition of violence in the UN Charter.
2. The distinction between “Host Country Support” and “Participation”
States that provide bases often try to defend themselves by saying that they are only providing “logistical support” or fulfilling bilateral agreements, and that they are not “participating” in the actual fighting. However, in international law this line is very fine and in practice often blurred:
- If the base is used to carry out the specific attacks deemed illegal, it becomes very difficult for the host country to claim that they are merely a passive bystander.
- There is no general obligation under the NATO Treaty (Article 5) to support an ally in a military operation that is not collective self-defense against an armed attack on a member.
3. The legal consequences
If a country lends its territory to an illegal military campaign, they risk the following:
- International legal accountability: The country may be subject to diplomatic protests, economic sanctions or, in extreme cases, lawsuits in international courts (e.g. the International Court of Justice, ICJ).
- Complicity in war crimes: If the base is used to carry out attacks that violate international humanitarian law (e.g., targeted attacks on civilians), host country decision-makers could potentially be subject to investigations for complicity in war crimes.
- Political isolation: Although legal processes take time, they often lead to immediate political damage and isolation in the UN and other international forums.
4. Why does this happen then?
The fact that countries allow this despite the legal risks is usually due to political realities rather than legal rights:
- Alliance loyalty: Within NATO, political ties to the United States often outweigh strict interpretations of international law.
- Treaty obligations: Existing bilateral agreements (such as “Status of Forces Agreements” – SOFA) often grant the US far-reaching rights to use bases, which puts local governments in a difficult legal and political bind between their international obligations to the US and the requirements of international law.
In summary: Although it happens in practice, there is often no solid international legal basis for granting bases to a state waging a war of aggression. It is more a political choice than a legal right, and it entails significant legal and moral risks for the granting country.
/ By Ingemar Lindmark