The Case for Kicking Spain Out of NATO: Base Denial, China Ties, and Freeloading

When Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) closed the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump assumed that NATO allies who had benefited from U.S. defense spending for 70 years would participate in reopening it. Their refusal was clearly political rather than rational.

Europe receives roughly 10% of its oil and 7% of its LNG through the Strait of Hormuz, and the IRGC blockade has driven a 70% spike in some European energy costs. Given that dependence, allied participation in reopening the strait would seem a matter of direct self-interest.

Not only did European support not materialize, Madrid actually tried to hinder U.S. operations. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez publicly refused to allow the United States to use jointly operated military bases on Spanish territory for strikes on Iran, calling the attacks an “unjustified and dangerous military intervention.”

Shortley after this refusal, on April 14, Sánchez flew to Beijing to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The two countries signed 19 bilateral agreements. They also officially elevated their relationship to a Strategic Dialogue, one of the highest levels Beijing reserves for its closest partners. Sánchez told the press that it is “very difficult to find other interlocutors who can untangle this situation caused in Iran and in the Strait of Hormuz beyond China.” He also called on China to play a greater role in ending not only the war in Iran, but also the wars in Ukraine and Lebanon.

Sánchez echoed Chinese Communist Party language when he said that “countries that value principle and justice” must reject any backslide into “the law of the jungle.” Like Beijing, he declared the U.S. strikes on Iran illegal. Repeating Xi’s framing from previous statements on the war, he said that countries had to work together to support “the international system with the UN at its core” and “the international order based on international law.”

In addition to the propaganda, Sánchez signed Madrid up for Xi Jinping’s four major initiatives to build a new, Beijing-centered world order: The Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative.

The Global Development Initiative (GDI), launched in September 2021, is the economic pillar, nominally focused on the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. In practice, it extends Chinese economic influence into the Global South as a repackaged version of Belt and Road logic.

The Global Security Initiative (GSI), launched in April 2022, promotes a state-centric security model built around absolute sovereignty and non-interference, which in practice shields authoritarian regimes from Western pressure and challenges the U.S.-led security architecture.

The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), launched in March 2023, frames Chinese governance values as universal, opposes what Beijing calls Western “cultural hegemony,” and targets political elites abroad to normalize CCP norms on human rights and sovereignty.

The Global Governance Initiative (GGI), launched in September 2025, is the newest. It calls for reforming international institutions such as the UN, IMF, and World Bank to give the Global South, and by extension China, more weight, and to provide the institutional architecture for the other three initiatives.

Spain prioritizing Beijing over the U.S. or EU as a peace partner undermines NATO’s cohesion, as does joining the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) alternative global organizations that challenge the existing Western order. Furthermore, allowing China to invest heavily in Spain, particularly in sensitive sectors such as communications, carries espionage risk. Consequently, U.S. and EU officials regard Spain as a potential weak point in Europe’s security framework.

President Trump’s response to Spain was to call the country “terrible” and instruct Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “cut off all trade with Spain.” He also said the U.S. could “just fly in and use” Spanish bases regardless, adding, “Nobody’s going to tell us not to use it.” Bessent told CNBC that Spain had been “highly uncooperative regarding the U.S. bases” and that Spain had “put American lives at risk” by slowing U.S. operations.

An internal Pentagon email obtained by Reuters outlined options including suspending Spain from NATO, a move the email acknowledged would carry “symbolic weight with little operational consequence,” since NATO’s founding treaty contains no mechanism to expel a member state. Senator Lindsey Graham recommended closing U.S. air bases in Spain and relocating to countries that “allow these assets to be used to protect America and the world.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former vocal NATO defender, questioned the alliance’s value directly: “We have countries like Spain, a NATO member, that we are pledged to defend, denying us the use of their airspace and bragging about it. And so you ask yourself, ‘Well, what is in it for the United States?’” He stressed that the request had been modest, not airstrikes, only base access to infrastructure the U.S. helped build and fund. Speaking on Fox News, he added: “If now we have reached a point where the NATO alliance means that we can’t use those bases to defend America’s interests, then NATO is a one-way street.”

The dispute is compounded by a second grievance. Spain is the only NATO member that refused to commit to the alliance’s 5% GDP defense spending target agreed at The Hague summit, insisting its existing 2% trajectory is sufficient. Trump had previously called Spain a “laggard” and suggested it could be removed from the alliance.

NATO’s institutional response has been split. A senior NATO official confirmed that Trump cannot expel member states over their stance on Iran. Secretary General Mark Rutte praised the U.S.-Israel action against Iran and said there was “widespread support in Europe” for it. This statement distanced the alliance from Madrid without directly condemning it.

Unfortunately, no one in Europe has recognized the fact that Spain’s closeness with China has implications for the Ukraine war. China backs Russia economically, and the more trade and investment it conducts with Madrid, the more assistance Beijing can afford to provide to Moscow. Spain is now aligned with China, refusing to fight Iran, and is indirectly aiding Russia, which means Madrid is aligned with the triumvirate that now has Europe flanked.

The post The Case for Kicking Spain Out of NATO: Base Denial, China Ties, and Freeloading appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.