Intellectual giants are in painfully short supply in the Trump administration, but if there was anyone who might lay claim to cerebral weight of any sort, Elbridge Colby might be one of them. Self-styled as a China hawk, the U.S. Under Secretary of War for Policy must privately be bemused by the changeling that has become U.S. foreign policy, one now latched onto, yet again, the issues of the Middle East and the shaking tail that is Israel. President Donald Trump, the man who promised to end wars and terminate the state of permanent conflict the U.S. has found itself in for decades, is sticking to bad habits.<\/p>\n
These bad habits have not been appreciated by various allies, notably members of NATO. Spain, France, and Italy have shown varying degrees of icy reserve to the use of their bases and airspace by U.S. forces in striking Iran. The UK has been less firm on the issue, though its unpopular Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is adamant that no troops will be committed to the operation. These countries have also given the cold shoulder to deploying troops in any forceable operation to open the Strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n
Of all the allies, Spain has proven a model objector, arguing that the pre-emptive war launched by Israel and the U.S. on February 28 was and remains illegal. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro S\u00e1nchez has stated at length, both in writing and in the press, that the assault was a chilling reminder about what happened in February 2003, when U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, spun that now all too familiar lie before the UN Security Council that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but was bound to use them, directly or through some unscrupulous proxy. \u201cToday we face a similar situation,\u201d wrote<\/a> S\u00e1nchez in The Economist, \u201cand my government\u2019s position is the same as that voiced by Spanish society two decades ago: NO TO WAR. No to the unilateral violation of international law. No to repeating the mistakes of the past. No to the idea that the world\u2019s problems can be solved with bombs.\u201d<\/p>\n Espa\u00f1a ha logrado un acuerdo hist\u00f3rico con la OTAN que le permitir\u00e1 seguir siendo un miembro clave de la Alianza y contribuir de forma proporcional a sus capacidades, sin tener que aumentar su gasto en defensa, ni alcanzar el 5% del PIB.<\/p>\n Tenemos que proteger Europa. Pero tambi\u00e9n\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/jYc2Ilneaw<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Pedro S\u00e1nchez (@sanchezcastejon) June 22, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n Spain has also peeved officials in Washington for being the least enthusiastic of the NATO partners in increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP. At the June 2025 NATO summit held at The Hague, S\u00e1nchez insisted that all members of the alliance had \u201cthe right and the obligation to choose whether or no to assume those sacrifices, and we as a sovereign country choose not to do so.\u201d Spain would, he promised, spend 2.1% of its GDP on defence \u201cto acquire and maintain all the personnel, equipment and infrastructures requested by the alliance to confront these threats with our capabilities.\u201d Spain\u2019s opposition reaped the appropriate concession from NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who confirmed that Madrid be granted \u201cthe flexibility to determine its own sovereign path for reaching the Capability Target goal and the annual resources necessary as a share of GDP, and to submit its own annual plans.\u201d<\/p>\n At the time, Trump raged<\/a> that he would make Spain \u201cpay twice as much\u201d through tariffs if they continued to maintain their more frugal stance on military spending. \u201cSpain is the only country that refuses to pay. They want a free ride \u2013 but I won\u2019t let that happen.\u201d<\/p>\n With Trump officials seething at European reluctance to muck in regarding the Iran conflict, options for retaliation are germinating in Washington. Some of these are available in a disciplinary note penned by Colby in considering the reluctance on the part of some allies to grant the U.S. ABO (access, basing and overflight rights). ABO was the \u201cabsolute baseline for NATO.\u201d<\/p>\n Spain is particularly important in this regard, given its hosting of two vital U.S. facilities. Naval Station Rota (NAVSTA Rota), located in southern Spain, is described<\/a> by the Pentagon as offering support for \u201cNaval Forces Europe Africa Central (EURAFCENT), 6th Fleet and Combatant Commander strategic priorities by providing airfield and port facilities, security, force protection, logistical support, administrative support, and emergency services to all U.S. and NATO forces.\u201d Mor\u00f3n Air Base, located near Seville, is seminal for operations given its proximity to the Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East.<\/p>\n In the email, Colby, according<\/a> to a Reuters report, considers policies that are intended to decrease \u201cthe sense of entitlement on the part of the Europeans.\u201d Member states deemed \u201cdifficult\u201d might be suspended from essential or prestigious positions in the alliance. The claim by Britain to the Falkland Islands might also be reviewed.<\/p>\n Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson, when asked about the plausibility of the email, summed<\/a> up the moody atmosphere without giving much in the way of details. \u201cAs President Trump has said, despite everything the United States has done for our NATO allies, they were not there for us.\u201d The Pentagon would \u201censure that the president has credible options to ensure that our allies are no longer a paper tiger and instead do their part. We have no further comment on any internal deliberations to that effect.\u201d<\/p>\n S\u00e1nchez sees little reason to worry. \u201cWe do not work based on emails,\u201d he told reporters<\/a> in response to Colby\u2019s ruminations. \u201cWe work with official documents and official positions taken, in this case, by the government of the United States.\u201d Madrid was all for \u201cfull cooperation with its allies, but always within the framework of international law.\u201d<\/p>\n Much blather on suspension or expulsion is likely to remain just that. NATO\u2019s founding treaty does not expressly stipulate the grounds for expelling recalcitrant members. Article 13<\/a> notes that, after the Treaty has been in force for two decades, \u201cany Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.\u201d<\/p>\n The removal of any members from the 32-strong club is also likely to create much messy mayhem, given the consensus principle that members tend to follow on issues of significance. Security analyst Jack Buckby, writing<\/a> in 19FortyFive, proposes a military disincentive as well. \u201cSpain sits on NATO\u2019s southern flank and controls valuable territory along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. It also hosts infrastructure that the alliance already uses, and weakening that position to punish Madrid would carry a cost for NATO.\u201d Yet another notch of distraction in an administration that specialises in the subject.<\/p>\n \n If you’re interested in writing for International Policy Digest – please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org<\/a>\n <\/p>\n