Pedro Sanchez's lone stance against Trump may look risky, but it is cannily pragmatic | Eoghan Gilmartin
Briefly

Pedro Sanchez's lone stance against Trump may look risky, but it is cannily pragmatic | Eoghan Gilmartin
"We are not going to be accomplices to something that is bad for the world and contrary to our values and interests simply out of fear of reprisals. His defiance of US-Israeli aggression did not stop at words. On Monday, it had emerged that his administration was refusing the US use of the air bases at Rota and Moron—prompting the withdrawal of 15 US aircraft from Spain."
"Yet unlike his 1980s predecessor Felipe Gonzalez, Sanchez's stance places him apart from his European peers. With Trump threatening economic retaliation, and his fellow Nato leaders signalling different degrees of accommodation with Washington's war plans, Sanchez's position can appear a principled but perilous stand."
"His defiance over the Iran conflict reflects a calculation that the geopolitical risks are manageable, the potential electoral rewards significant, and that the broad alignment with Trump's militarism will not hold. Spain was alone in refusing to commit to spend on Nato defence spending targets last year."
Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez took a defiant stance against US-Israeli military action against Iran, declaring his government would not become accomplices to actions contrary to Spanish values and interests. His administration refused the United States use of air bases at Rota and Moron, resulting in the withdrawal of 15 US aircraft from Spain. When Trump threatened trade retaliation, Sanchez maintained his position, stating Spain would not be intimidated by economic reprisals. This stance places him apart from other European NATO leaders who have shown varying degrees of accommodation with Washington's military plans. Sanchez's position reflects pragmatic calculations regarding geopolitical risks, electoral considerations, and his assessment that broad alignment with Trump's militarism will not persist.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]