Graham: ‘Cuba is next’ – ‘Trump surpassed Reagan’ – The doctrine of chain regime change
The Strait of Hormuz blocked: the greatest energy risk since 1973
Introduction
On 4 March 2026, the world awoke to the fifth consecutive day of the US-Israeli Operation Epic Fury against Iran and a diplomatic earthquake of the first order within the Atlantic Alliance itself. The conflict in the Middle East has acted as a relentless catalyst and revealed the true nature of European governments at the moment of truth. While Germany, France and the United Kingdom — with their nuances and doubts — did not break with Washington, the Spanish government of Mr Sánchez has staged the most scandalous response by a NATO partner in decades: not only did it refuse to lend the bases at Rota and Morón, but it also expelled the fifteen American tanker aircraft operating from its territory, in the midst of a military campaign against the terrorist regime in Tehran.
Washington’s reaction has been proportional to the seriousness of the snub. Donald Trump threatened to cut off all trade relations with Spain. Senator Lindsey Graham, an increasingly influential voice in Republican foreign policy, described Sánchez’s government as an ‘aberration’ and an example of the ‘gold standard of pathetically weak European leadership’. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, is directly responsible for a decision that has seriously damaged Spanish national interests and left our country in a position of unprecedented isolation within the Alliance.
This report places that diplomatic scandal at the centre of the analysis. The war with Iran, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, European rearmament and the doctrine of chain regime change complete a geopolitical picture of exceptional intensity.
Graham calls the Sánchez government an ‘aberration’ and Trump threatens to cut off all trade with Spain.
Facts
Pedro Sánchez’s government has become the only NATO government that not only refused to support Operation Epic Fury but went a step further: Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares publicly stated that ‘Spanish bases are not being used for this operation and will not be used for anything that does not comply with the United Nations Charter’.
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 refuelling operations. The aircraft left Spanish territory. It was the first forced evacuation of US military units from a NATO base by sovereign decision of the host country in times of active conflict. Washington’s response was swift.
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 emphasised 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.’
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 defence 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 of Spanish democracy. To understand its full significance, it is necessary to remember the context: Spain hosts the largest US naval presence outside the continental United States in the Mediterranean in Rota, with four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile defence system. Rota and Morón are key pieces in NATO’s defence architecture on its southern flank. The bilateral Spanish-US Defence 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 Affairs portfolio since 2021 and has been the architect of a foreign policy marked by systematic distancing from Washington and alignment with the less Atlanticist positions of the European spectrum, bears the institutional signature of this decision. The argument that Spain only allows the use of its bases ‘for activities in accordance with the United Nations Charter’ is a legal formulation that is as lax as it is convenient: it allows Albares to dress up what is nothing more than ideology as principle. France, Germany and the United Kingdom — with their reservations and conditions — did not go to such extremes. Spain did.
Graham’s description of this as an ‘aberration’ is not empty rhetoric: it is the political judgement of one of the most influential senators in the Republican Party on the nature of the Sánchez government in the context of Atlantic security. When Graham says he ‘hopes it will be a parenthesis’, he is telling the world that Washington does not consider this government a reliable interlocutor and that it trusts Spain to recover its Atlanticist tradition in the next legislative term.
Outlook and scenarios
Trump’s threat to cut bilateral trade is, in part, negotiating rhetoric. The volume of Spanish-US trade — more than €35 billion annually — makes a total break unlikely in the short term. But the political and institutional damage is real and immediate. Negotiations on the new Defence Agreement – which should be renewed this year – are starting with a very serious handicap. The bases at Rota and Morón could lose investment, personnel and operational relevance. More importantly, Spain’s credibility as a partner in any future crisis scenario will have been seriously compromised in the eyes of NATO’s most important ally. All this is a direct consequence of an ideological decision by Mr Sánchez and his minister Albares, who have put their domestic political convictions before Spain’s national interests.
US Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican from South Carolina) joins President Donald Trump to speak to reporters aboard Air Force One, en route from Florida to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, USA, on 4 January 2026 – REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST
Graham: ‘Cuba is next’ – ‘Trump surpassed Reagan’ – The doctrine of chain regime change
Facts
Senator Lindsey Graham, the same man who slammed the Sánchez government as an ‘aberration’, made an appearance on Fox News on the evening of Sunday 1 March that can be considered the most explicit formulation to date of the new US foreign policy doctrine under Trump.
Graham’s statements come amid a period of effervescence in Trump’s immediate circle. A senior administration official told The Atlantic journalist Vivian Salama that the president ‘feels like he’s on a roll, that this is working.’ A day before launching the attacks on Iran, Trump himself had raised the idea of a ‘friendly takeover’ of Cuba, indicating that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in contact with Havana at the highest level. Rubio had stated: ‘The status quo in Cuba is unacceptable. Cuba has to change.’
Trump, in an interview with the New York Times, said that the Venezuelan model was ‘the perfect scenario’: capture Maduro, guarantee US companies access to Venezuelan oil, and let the rest of the regime run the country under supervision. The possible application of this scheme to Cuba raises geopolitical questions of the first order.
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,’ Trump-style, 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 the last dumps of history, 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 precipitated the collapse of Soviet communism. The comparison is bold and debatable, but it reflects the mood of a part of the Republican establishment that feels that the moment is historic and does not want to waste it.
Prospects and scenarios
The realisation of the threat to Cuba depends on the outcome of the war with Iran. If the operation ends in relative success — a weakened regime, a nuclear agreement, an acceptable political transition — the pressure on Havana will intensify with additional sanctions, economic pressure operations and the collapse of the post-Maduro Venezuelan subsidy as a lever for collapse. 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 one has been closed with some viable transition architecture.
US Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina – REUTERS/ EVELYN HOCKSTEIN
‘This is not Winston Churchill’ – Trump and the transatlantic crisis: Starmer, Spain and the European divorce
Facts
Along with 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 that is unparalleled between two allied leaders of the Atlantic Alliance. The Labour Prime Minister had initially refused to allow British bases to be used for offensive operations and only partially relented days later, authorising ‘specific and limited use for defensive purposes’ of two bases on British territory.
The Financial Times described Starmer’s position as his ‘Love Actually moment’ — alluding to the scene in the film where the British Prime Minister confronts the American President. Starmer responded in Parliament: ‘President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision, but it is my duty to judge what is in the British national interest.’ German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — the first European leader to visit Trump since the attacks began — was, on the contrary, greeted with praise. Trump noted that Germany was ‘helping’ by allowing the use of its bases and that Merz was an ‘excellent leader.’ Merz, in turn, stated that Germany and the US were ‘on the same page’ in ending the Iranian regime and discussing ‘the day after.’
At the same time, France and Germany announced the creation of a Franco-German ‘joint nuclear steering group,’ the first concrete sign in decades that Europe is beginning to build an autonomous continental deterrent. Europe was informed ‘minutes before’ the attacks began, according to MEP Hannah Neumann, chair of the delegation for relations with Iran, speaking before the European Parliament.
Implications
The transatlantic crisis reveals a clear hierarchy of European behaviour when put to the test: Germany, committed; France, useful on the defensive; the UK, ambiguous, but ultimately cooperative. Spain, the only country to break with the Atlantic consensus, expelled aircraft and condemned the attacks. The comparison between Starmer and Churchill is harsh, but it has an element of truth: at the moment of 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 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.
Outlook and scenarios
The special Anglo-American relationship is experiencing its greatest tension since Suez, but it has the historical, linguistic and institutional foundations to withstand it. Starmer will end up giving in more than he has already done. Spain, on the other hand, is facing negotiations on its defence agreements in the worst possible position. The only realistic scenario for recovery involves a change of government in Madrid that would put Spain back at the centre of European Atlanticism — which Graham himself, by calling the Sánchez government a ‘parenthesis’, seems to anticipate and desire.
Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States
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 on Wednesday. The US 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,’ said Admiral Brad Cooper. The death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, confirmed on 1 March, has triggered an emergency succession: Iranian sources indicate that the Assembly of Experts has appointed Moytaba Khamenei, the son of the deceased, as the new Supreme Leader. President Pezeshkian announced that the executive is delegating power to provincial governors. Israeli attacks on 3 March targeted missile production facilities across the country. Iran struck the air-raid shelter of a synagogue in Beit Shemesh with a missile, killing nine people and injuring dozens. Six American soldiers have been killed.
Implications
Khamenei’s death and the possible dynastic succession of his son Moytabá present an insurmountable contradiction with the stated goal 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 the fundamental political objective. Trump’s admission that ‘most of the people we had in mind are dead’ is an unwitting summary of the lack of post-conflict planning that critics of the operation pointed out from day one.
Outlook and scenarios
The most likely short-term scenario is a gradual military degradation of Iran combined with continued retaliation by the IRGC using missiles and drones. The reopening of the Lebanese front—Hezbollah declared ‘open war’ and attacked Haifa on 2 March—multiplies the strategic complexity. The risk of a long war without a clear political objective is the main danger at the moment. Trump urgently needs an architect for the day after, and so far that architect is conspicuous by his absence.
The Strait of Hormuz blocked: the greatest 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 ship that attempted to cross it. One hundred and fifty ships, including numerous oil tankers, are paralysed, waiting to resume navigation. Qatar Energy halted liquefied natural gas (LNG) production in Ras Laffan following Iranian attacks on its facilities, causing the price of European natural gas to skyrocket by almost 70% in two days. The price of Brent crude exceeded $83 per barrel. Dubai’s financial markets will reopen on Wednesday after a two-day suspension. Goldman Sachs warned that the market correction has not yet occurred: its impact could be ‘violent’.
Implications
The Strait of Hormuz channels approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil trade — some 20 million barrels per day — and 17% of global LNG. Its effective blockade poses the greatest energy risk since the 1973 crisis. For Europe, which has already suffered a severe energy crisis in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the impact threatens to be devastating. The German government activated its gas crisis cell. International insurers have withdrawn ‘war risk’ coverage for traffic in the area. The dollar strengthened against the euro, which fell to 1.1590. Gold and silver rose as safe-haven assets.
Outlook and scenarios
If the closure lasts more than two weeks, the impact on global inflation could be between 30 and 50 additional basis points, with direct consequences on central bank interest rates. The United States is considering releasing strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) and providing naval escorts for oil tankers. A prolonged blockade scenario could trigger a global recession. Partial normalisation of traffic — if the IRGC is sufficiently degraded — could occur within weeks.
The Iranian flag and miniature 3D-printed oil barrels are seen in this illustration taken on 23 June 2025 – REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File photo
Anglo-Saxon media
The Washington Post / The New York Times: Very critical coverage of the lack of post-conflict planning. The Post reports that US and Israeli officials ‘were unprepared for the speed and scope of Iran’s 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 Congressional Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
The Wall Street Journal / Financial Times: The WSJ reports that the Emirates were ‘on edge’ after Iranian drones penetrated their air defence system. The FT dubs Starmer’s stance his ‘Love Actually moment’ and warns of the economic damage of the Strait of Hormuz blockade. Goldman Sachs CEO warns that the market correction has not begun. Tone: analytical, concerned.
The Times (London) / The Telegraph: The Telegraph publishes Trump’s comments on Starmer: ‘He’s no Churchill.’ The Times analyses the Labour leader’s humiliation. Both papers report on Trump’s threats to Spain. Tone: Atlanticist, critical of Downing Street’s handling of the situation.
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 reproduces Graham’s speech on Cuba and his attack on the Sánchez government in full.
Washington Times / The National Interest: The Washington Times transcribes Trump’s words 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 analyses Merz’s ‘gamble’ in aligning himself with Trump. The Irish Times publishes an extensive profile entitled ‘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 defence of the position of Sánchez and Albares, 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 on 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 on the peace negotiations. Tone concerned about the effect of the war with Iran on the Ukrainian front.
Gulf, Middle East 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 Emirates. Gulf News reports on the reopening of the Dubai markets. The Times of Israel and AFP reproduce Trump’s threats to Spain. Haaretz warns of 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 ‘illegal aggression’. No editorial credibility. It should be noted that both RT and TASS highlight with satisfaction the Spanish position as an example of a ‘rift in NATO’ — which should give pause for thought to those in Madrid who share the Kremlin’s position on this issue.
South China Morning Post / China Daily: Beijing condemns the attacks. The SCMP reports on the Wang Yi-Lavrov conversation demanding a ceasefire. Tone: cautious, with an appeal to multilateralism. Chinese concern about the impact of the blockade of Hormuz, given that 84% of the crude oil that passes through the strait is destined for Asian markets.
There are moments in the history of countries when foreign policy ceases to be a matter for experts and becomes a mirror in which an entire nation sees itself as it really is. Spain has just experienced one of those moments, and what the mirror reflects is far from flattering.
The government of Pedro Sánchez and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, have taken the most damaging decision for Spanish national interests in terms of defence and security since Spain’s return to NATO’s integrated command structure in 1997. Not only did they refuse to lend the bases at Rota and Morón for operations in support of the coalition fighting the terrorist regime in Tehran — the only government in the entire Atlantic Alliance to take that stance — but they went a step further and physically expelled the fifteen American tanker aircraft operating from Spanish soil. This is an unprecedented act in the history of NATO.
An act that leaves Spain on the sidelines of 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 is 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 the Spanish people and ‘their current leadership’, he is making exactly the same diagnosis as those of us who have been warning for years that the Sánchez government’s foreign policy has lost its Atlantic compass. And when he expresses his hope that this is ‘a parenthesis, not the norm’, he is sending Spain a message of confidence in its ability to rectify the situation — when the government changes.
Albares has invoked the United Nations 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, Germany nor the United Kingdom — countries with an international legal tradition as solid as or stronger than Spain’s — went to such extremes. Second, the UN Security Council is structurally blocked by the Russian and Chinese veto, which makes invoking its authority in this context an alibi, not a principle.
Thirdly, the Iranian regime has assassinated dissidents, financed Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism for decades, massacred its own citizens in 2025 and 2026, and built a nuclear programme with the sole declared aim of destroying Israel. That the Sánchez government is ‘the only European government to condemn the initial attacks’ — according to Politico — while Iranian terrorism exported death throughout the Gulf, says everything there is to say about the moral compass of those who govern today in La Moncloa.
And it is not just a moral issue. It is a matter of national interests. The bases at Rota and Morón are the largest American investment in defence on European Mediterranean soil. The four Aegis destroyers at Rota are the anti-missile umbrella for southern Europe. The Spanish-US Defence and Cooperation Agreement is being negotiated this year. Madrid has just arrived at the table having expelled its allies in the midst of a crisis. Sánchez and Albares have mortgaged decades of strategic relations with the US to satisfy a radical left-wing electoral audience that applauds from the stands while the interests of all Spaniards are held hostage.
That said, and to be thorough, let us also point out what Trump and Graham are doing wrong. The threat to cut off all trade with Spain is rhetorical hyperbole that contributes nothing constructive. Allies recover through institutional firmness and private conversations, not through public ultimatums that smack 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 architecture of its successor is a strategic mistake that takes its toll with a brutality that no triumphalism can anticipate.
But let’s be clear: the main responsibility for the diplomatic crisis between Spain and the United States lies entirely with the Sánchez-Albares government. Trump reacts. Sánchez has acted. That difference is not insignificant. Graham is right: let’s hope it’s a parenthesis. Aristotle reminded us that prudence is the cardinal virtue of the ruler. What the Spanish government has exhibited this week is exactly the opposite.