An internal Pentagon memo and its political interpretation
Spain, the United States and the underlying conflict: the war with Iran
The legal key: NATO does not provide for expulsions
NATO as a structure of political discipline, not just military
The infrastructure factor: Rota, Morón and strategic dependence
What this episode really says about NATO
A debate that goes beyond Spain
In recent hours, reports have been published based on an internal Pentagon email mentioning the possibility of ‘suspending’ Spain from NATO or applying pressure within the Atlantic alliance.
The reason, according to these reports, is said to be linked to the Spanish government’s refusal to support certain operations related to the military escalation with Iran, particularly regarding the use of bases such as Rota and Morón or Spanish airspace.
The public debate has almost immediately centred on a striking, yet legally straightforward, question: can Spain be expelled from NATO? However, this approach overlooks the most significant aspect of the matter.
The real significance of this episode lies not in the legal feasibility of an expulsion, but in what it reveals about the internal workings of the alliance, the tensions between member states, and the way in which the United States interprets strategic discipline within the bloc.
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez during his official statement at La Moncloa – PHOTO/Pool Moncloa/Borja Puig de la Bellacasa
An internal Pentagon memo and its political interpretation
Reports suggest an internal document from the US Department of Defence outlining various scenarios for exerting pressure on allies who, in certain contexts, do not align with Washington’s position. Spain features in this context due to its refusal to automatically grant access to infrastructure such as the Rota and Morón bases in relation to the military escalation surrounding Iran; as well as its refusal to allocate 5% of GDP to the defence budget.
The document has not been officially confirmed by the Pentagon. However, sources cited by The Washington Post point to an internal climate of “growing frustration” within the US security apparatus towards some European partners. This is not a new formulation, but it is more explicit than is usual in internal working documents.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has not made any direct statements regarding this specific email, although the Pentagon insists that cooperation within NATO remains “solid and operational”. Even so, the internal debate exists, particularly regarding the use of European logistical capabilities in operations outside the strictly NATO framework.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at a joint session of Congress in the House of Representatives at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday 24 February 2026 – Kenny Holston/Pool via REUTERS
In the case of Spain, the sensitive issue is once again the same as on other occasions: the use of the Rota and Morón bases and the authorisation of airspace. These are key facilities for US military projection towards the Middle East and North Africa, and any restriction on their use has a direct impact on operational planning.
On behalf of the Spanish government, Pedro Sánchez has sought to downplay the scope of the controversy. In a statement following the publication of this information, he argued that Spain “is a reliable ally within NATO” and that all the government’s decisions “are taken in accordance with international law and the multilateral commitments undertaken”.
Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares has made similar remarks, denying that there is “any formal discussion” with Washington regarding a breakdown in cooperation. “The bilateral relationship with the United States is not in question,” he stated.
Spain, the United States and the underlying conflict: the war with Iran
The root of this whole episode does not lie in Spain, even though it ends up passing through the country. It lies in the escalation between the United States and Iran, which in recent months has once again heightened tensions on the international stage. In Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has toughened his rhetoric in several public statements, insisting that “the stability of the region depends on a coordinated response from allies in the face of persistent threats”.
In this context, the role of countries with significant military infrastructure in Europe becomes more sensitive. Spain fits into this picture for a very specific reason: Rota and Morón are not merely symbolic bases; they are frequently used logistical hubs for US operations in the Middle East and North Africa.
Spain’s position on this point has not fundamentally changed, but its application has become stricter. The Ministry of Defence, led by Margarita Robles, has repeatedly stated that the use of these facilities “is not automatic”. The formula is well known, but it has practical implications, and each operation requires specific authorisation. And that, against a backdrop of growing military tension, creates friction.
Defence Minister Margarita Robles welcomed the newly accredited US Ambassador to Spain, Benjamín León, with a smile in her office – PHOTO/Rubén Somonte-MDE
This is not the first time something like this has happened, but it is the first time the context has amplified the political noise. In other crises, such authorisations were resolved discreetly. Now, any restriction is interpreted almost as a sign of geopolitical alignment.
Within Spain, the debate has quickly shifted to the political arena. Alberto Núñez Feijóo has called for avoiding “messages that could weaken relations with the United States”, emphasising that the transatlantic alliance is “a pillar of European security”.
On the left, the interpretation is different. Sumar argues that the government is acting within its sovereign remit and that Spain is not obliged to automatically follow Washington’s military decisions.
Between these two positions lies a middle ground which, in reality, is where Spanish foreign policy has traditionally operated. Close cooperation with the United States, yes, but without relinquishing its own decision-making when it comes to scenarios of military intervention.
And that is where the episode ceases to be a controversy over an internal Pentagon email and becomes a stress test of the extent to which European allies can maintain their own autonomy when Washington enters a phase of heightened operational demands.
Aerial view of the Pentagon in Washington, USA – REUTERS/JOSHUA ROBERTS
The legal key: NATO does not provide for expulsions
One of the points most frequently overlooked in the public debate is NATO’s legal framework itself, which in this case is considerably more limited than some headlines suggest.
The North Atlantic Treaty, signed in 1949, states in Article 13 that any country may withdraw from the organisation, but only voluntarily and following a formal notification process. There is no room for interpretation on this point: withdrawal is possible, but always by the state’s own decision.
What is relevant here is what does not appear in the text. There is no mechanism for expelling a member state. This absence reflects the Alliance’s founding logic, which is built on voluntary membership and political consensus, not on hierarchical relationships of sanction between allies.
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself has been asked on other occasions about hypothetical scenarios of expulsion or suspension; and his response has remained consistent over time: “NATO is an alliance based on consensus and voluntary membership. There is no mechanism for expulsion.”
From a strictly legal standpoint, NATO cannot expel Spain or any other member. What does exist, and this is where the less visible part of the system comes in, are informal mechanisms of political and operational pressure that can affect the degree of actual participation.
Mark Rutte (left), who served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands for 14 years, is the newly appointed Secretary General of NATO, succeeding the Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg, who held the post for ten years – PHOTO/NATO
NATO as a structure of political discipline, not just military
Beyond the legal sphere, this episode reopens a debate that has been on the table within NATO itself for years: to what extent is the alliance merely a collective defence pact? And to what extent does it also function as a structure of political discipline amongst states with interests that are not always aligned?
Former Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen already highlighted this tension in 2014 when he warned that “internal political differences can be as dangerous to NATO’s cohesion as external threats”. This was in response to a context in which clear divergences were beginning to emerge between the United States and some European partners regarding foreign interventions and strategic priorities.
In practice, when a country deviates from a common line on a sensitive issue, the response rarely takes a legal form. There are no formal sanctions or expulsion procedures. What is triggered is a different kind of dynamic: operational adjustments, reduced access to certain levels of information, or limitations on participation in military planning.
US President Donald Trump meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on 25 June 2025 – REUTERS/BRIAN SNYDER
It is in this context that the references appearing in the leaked Pentagon email fit, as they point precisely to tools for exerting internal pressure within the alliance. Max Bergmann, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has summed this up in a point frequently made in various security forums: “NATO does not expel countries, but it can significantly reduce a country’s political influence within the alliance if there is no strategic alignment”.
This distinction between formal membership and actual influence is, at its core, one of the most significant aspects of the case. Because it shifts the debate away from the question of whether an expulsion has taken place, and focuses instead on how disagreement is managed within a structure that depends, almost entirely, on constant political coordination among its members.
The infrastructure factor: Rota, Morón and strategic dependence
One of the least discussed elements is the actual weight of Spanish military infrastructure within the United States’ global strategy.
The bases at Rota and Morón are regarded by the Pentagon as “critical nodes of global projection”, according to strategic documents from the Department of Defence itself. This creates a clear relationship of interdependence: Spain provides strategic infrastructure; and the United States contributes military capability, intelligence and global deterrence.
Admiral Stuart Munsch, commander of US naval forces in Europe, has emphasised in previous statements that “Rota is essential for operational stability in the Mediterranean”. This symmetry, however, is not balanced in terms of political power, which explains why certain Spanish refusals quickly generate friction on the diplomatic front.
The Spanish government’s position has been interpreted as a matter of strategic autonomy within NATO. Pedro Sánchez has insisted in Brussels that “Spain fulfils its allied commitments, but does not automatically participate in operations that lack international consensus”. This highlights the structural limits of the Alliance.
A US Air Force Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker taxis along the runway at Morón Air Base in Morón de la Frontera, southern Spain – REUTERS/MARCELO DEL POZO
What this episode really says about NATO
Beyond the initial media hype, the case reveals three dynamics that are gaining traction within the alliance:
The growing divergence between the United States and some European partners on foreign interventions.
The use of operational rather than legal pressure to manage internal disagreements.
The structural dependence of certain European infrastructures on US global strategy.
The former US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, has summed up this tension clearly: “NATO remains strong, but it is no longer a monolithic bloc. It is an alliance that is constantly negotiating with itself.”
A debate that goes beyond Spain
Reducing this episode to the possibility of Spain’s expulsion from NATO is to scratch the surface. What is relevant is not the extreme scenario, but the mechanism of pressure hinted at in the leaked document and what it implies for the internal balance of the alliance.
Spain is not facing expulsion from NATO because that mechanism does not exist. But it is part of a broader debate on how dissent is managed within a military organisation that depends, to a large extent, on political coordination among its members.
And it is precisely here that this episode takes on its true significance: not in the break-up of NATO, but in the way NATO manages its own internal tensions in an increasingly unstable international landscape.