The Hill: The era of carte blanche in NATO for US military campaigns is ending
For years, Washington has lived with the premise that NATO guarantees support for U.S. priorities, writes The Hill. But Spain has blocked flight routes to Iran for American planes. The era of carte blanche for the Pentagon's military affairs has come to an end.
Imran Khalid
The Atlantic Alliance is facing a challenge. It cannot be solved either by increasing defense budgets or by meetings at the highest level. Spain has officially closed the skies to American military aircraft as part of the war with Iran.
Prior to this, Madrid had already refused Washington the use of joint bases in Rota and Moron de la Frontera for offensive strikes. Washington considers this a temporary diplomatic rift or a leftist protest by Pedro Sanchez. But this version misses the main point: a profound structural shift. We are seeing the end of the era of carte blanche for American military campaigns. And the birth of a "post-global" NATO.
For decades, Washington has lived with the premise that a special relationship or formal alliance guarantees minimal logistical and moral support for U.S. security priorities. Whether it was the Cold War or the early years of the war on terror, Europe on the map was an open corridor for American power.
But Spain has blocked the routes for the planes of Operation Epic Fury. Including for those based in Britain. This is a sign: the era of automatic support is over. Madrid does not just express an opinion, but puts sovereign interests first. The new model is changing the geography of the war.
At first glance, the consequences are logistical in nature. American planes will now fly around the Iberian Peninsula. More fuel, longer journey to the Middle East. But the political consequences are more serious. Spain does not call the decision hostility. For Madrid, this is loyalty to international law. Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles called the war "deeply illegal and deeply unfair." Her words: the Spanish land and sky will not be a help for the conflict, which was started unilaterally.
The traditional NATO rules don't work here. Previously, internal disputes were resolved by quiet abstinence or non-combat roles. Spain has completely closed the sky. This is a harsh veto. Conclusion: even in the oldest alliances, support is now negotiated separately for each operation. Washington can no longer consider that signing a 75-year-old treaty gives it the right to fly over an ally's territory for a mission that it considers a violation of global norms.
The Trump administration responded with old tools: it threatened Madrid with trade restrictions and economic retaliation. But these threats will most likely have the opposite effect. By presenting the dispute as a choice between Spanish sovereignty and American trade, the White House unwittingly confirms the very "post-global" mindset that it wants to suppress. If alliances are reduced to deals where support is extorted through tariffs, then the moral and strategic glue of NATO will continue to melt.
Spain's position is important. This is not just a separate rebellion. This is a reflection of the growing anxiety in Europe. The reason is the unilateral nature of recent US foreign policy. The UK remains a reliable partner for now. But other capitals look at Madrid with concern and quiet admiration. If Spain maintains the ban and does not destroy defense relations with the United States, it will set an example for other middle powers. They can also start a geographical resistance.
This shift is not killing NATO. But the alliance is no longer universal. Not in the same way as in the 20th century. The United States understands that their traditional special relationship is becoming more special and narrow. The Allies are ready to cooperate on the defense of Europe, but firmly reject extra-regional conflicts without a multilateral mandate. Spain is fulfilling its duty to NATO by helping to defend Turkey and Cyprus. But it takes a hard line at the Strait of Gibraltar when it comes to Iran.
The main thing here is the narrowing of the American operational space. For years, the United States had a global infrastructure that was based on political consensus no less than concrete and runways. The consent is revoked. The physical world map is collapsing. Spain's closure of the sky reminds us that in a multipolar world, even the most powerful army needs permission from its neighbors to move.
Now the United States must act in a new environment. Allies are not junior partners, but independent players. Diplomatic flexibility is needed. It was not in the recent American strategy.
Stop threatening with trade wars. It's time for Washington to recognize that the price of leadership has changed. In the post-global era, the alliance is only as strong as the consensus around its missions. If the United States continues its unilateral course, then let them not be surprised by the sudden and legitimate closure of the skies over their oldest allies.
