Our intrepid allies: Spain, Britain, Germany, and France
Spain, an ally? Well, it is in NATO, and it does let us have some bases within its borders. But in terms of history – during WWI it was neutral and during WWII it became a “non-belligerent” Axis affiliate while providing the Axis powers with important material such as tungsten. Spain also was under Muslim domination from 711 to 1492, and in recent years, the Muslim population of Spain has been growing:
According to an unofficial estimation of 2020 by the Union of Islamic Communities of Spain (UCIDE) the Muslim population in Spain represents 4.45% of the total Spanish population as of 2019, of whom 42% were Spanish citizens (most of them with foreign family origins), 38% Moroccans, and 20% of other nationalities.
So Spain has no particular inclination to be helpful to us in our attack on Iran, and has refused to do so:
Spain has denied the US permission to use jointly operated military bases on its territory to attack Iran as Madrid stepped up its criticism of the “unjustified and dangerous military intervention”.
Spain’s socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has explicitly condemned the US and Israel’s “unilateral military action” against Iran, warning that it is contributing to “a more hostile and uncertain international order”. The rebukes have been reinforced by his government’s refusal to allow the US to use bases in Rota and Morón for the continuing strikes against Iran.
José Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, said on Monday that while the government wanted “democracy, freedom and fundamental rights for the Iranian people”, it would on no account allow its bases to be used in the ongoing military action.
No doubt the Iranian people are hugely grateful for his good wishes for their freedom without any desire to give them the bare minimum of actual help.
Spain says the reason for its refusal is that the operation against Iran doesn’t have the blessing of the international community. I say it’s because Spain is run by leftists who hate Israel and don’t want their own Muslim population to give them any trouble.
Trump issued the following threat to Spain, and wasn’t too happy with Starmer either (another leftist head of state worried about the substantial Muslim population in his country):
President Trump railed Tuesday against NATO allies that refused to allow the US to use their bases to attack Iran, declaring he was going to “cut off all trade with Spain” and denouncing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “no Winston Churchill.”
Trump became visibly angry during his sitdown with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, spending several minutes blasting America’s European allies and arguing that they don’t spend enough on defense.
He also had harsh words for Starmer, showing a strain in his relationship with the United Kingdom.
“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said of the Labour prime minister.
The two leaders have been exchanging harsh words since Starmer denied Trump permission to use UK military bases in the first wave of attacks on Iran Saturday. …
“This government does not believe in regime change from the skies,” Starmer declared. “It is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done. And I stand by it.”
Starmer doesn’t believe in “regime change from the skies”? I guess the RAF in WWII wouldn’t have flown to Germany if Starmer had been in charge; Trump is certainly right about the “no Churchill” remark. Would Starmer prefer to wait until the mullahs in Iran decide to lob a long-range ballistic missile Britain’s way?
Then again, there’s this:
The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, did not initially allow US forces to use Diego Garcia or any UK airbases because of doubts about the legality of the strikes. But he changed his position on Sunday after Iran launched a wave of retaliatory missile and drone attacks on targets across the Middle East – one of which hit a UK airbase in Cyprus.
Oopsies. Trump responded by saying that Starmer had taken “far too long” to make the concession.
Germany has been somewhat less critical about the US on Iran, with Merz saying: “we’re not going to be lecturing our partners on their military strikes against Iran … Despite all the doubts, we share many of their aims.” Nevertheless, no action is forthcoming from Germany:
Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin is closely coordinating its position with European partners, the UK and France, though each country will decide independently what military defensive measures to take.
“The UK has concluded that it will make military bases available to the Americans. We don’t have any bases there, we also don’t have the corresponding military resources,” he told public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. “And the German government definitely has no intention of participating in any way,” he said.
And what of France?
French President Emmanuel Macron said the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran that began Saturday and killed the country’s supreme leader were conducted “outside of international law” and that Paris “cannot approve of them.”
What a guy. Then again, it was General Norman Schwarzkopf who said: “Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion.”
And yet Macron has offered a modest accordion:
To protect French interests in the Middle East, Macron said that the Charles de Gaulle, the country’s only aircraft carrier, was being deployed to the Mediterranean alongside fighter jets and air defense systems.
“We will continue this effort as long as it is needed,” he said.
Macron also confirmed that France had sent anti-missile systems to Cyprus …
Iran’s strikes on Cyprus seem to have engendered a certain amount of fear in Europe, it seems. That’s slightly similar to the Gulf States’ angry response to Iran’s attack on them. Seems those attacks were unforced errors by Iran, somewhat like Hitler’s decision – often considered “puzzling” – to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, which resulted in the US declaring war on Germany:
The only person who did not vote for war was pacifist Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin who had also voted against war with Japan.
In the Senate the vote was unanimous.
Both Democrats and Republicans have agreed to “adjourn politics” for the duration of the war and focus on national defence.
Greatest Generation.
Astounding.
We have had several summits and not-so-charming charm offenses in which Trump, Vance, Rubio, and Hesgeth have laid out the new doctrine, the new terms of the alliance.
And they still don’t get it. Still think they can pretend it away.
I am increasingly convinced that many in European leadership suffer from a real death wish.
Schwarzkopf would have loved today’s military.
I hate having to turn off my vpn to post here.
Todd Huff:
Some people have told me they are able to comment with a VPN. Others have said they can’t. I don’t know what makes the difference – perhaps the browser? I have no control over the matter. Whatever causes it, it happens automatically as far as I can tell.
Ben David:
I think it’s because they depend on their Muslim voters to get elected. They don’t want to ruffle their feathers. Plus, they know the US and Israel are motivated and will probably save them from the Iranian menace while they themselves continue to safely posture as the great internationalists who oppose the coarse barbarian Trump and the primitive Americans.
That Schwarzkopf quote brings to mind the classic Far Side cartoon where on one side of the panel there’s people lining up to enter heaven with an angel handing out harps saying “Welcome to heaven, here’s you harp” and on the other side people lining up to enter hell with a devil saying “Welcome to hell, here’s your accordian” while handing out said instrument.
Somewhat OT but that Schwarzkopf quote just doesn’t make sense. The French sent over 15,000 troops to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Their Dauget division was part of the ‘left hook’ into Iraq, pressing deep into Iraqi territory, and by all accounts they performed well. I just can’t see Schwarzkopf dissing them like that. (As an aside, the French surrender in 1940 seems to obscure the valor and tenacity of French troops in WWI, despite the instances of refusal to carry out offensive operations. The failure in 1940 is more attributable to poor preparation, fear a strong armed forces would threaten the political structure, and an outmoded and outclassed chain of command than how French troops actually fought against the Nazis.)
When queried about the quote Gemini sez “The quote is widely attributed to Jed Babbin, who used it in January 2003 on MSNBC’s Hardball to criticize France’s opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq. It is sometimes mistakenly attributed to Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, though evidence points to Babbin.” It appears to also sometimes be attributed to SecDef Donald Rumsfeld.
@neo:it was General Norman Schwarzkopf who said: “Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion.”
No, it was Jed Babbin on MSNBC in 2003. Like the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” from the Simpsons, too much fun not to quote, and attributing it to a warrior like Schwarzkopf is more congenial to those who want to use it than attributing to an ex-Air Force JAG and professional talking head, though he served creditably enough and in the dark days of the early 1970s when the briefs were flying in California and Virginia he was no doubt in danger of paper cuts and such.
Christopher B:
Yes, like many quotes, it’s often hard to know exactly who really said it.
@neo:Yes, like many quotes, it’s often hard to know exactly who really said it.
If by “hard” you mean it takes a few seconds with Google, yes. This one has been documented online since 2003, very soon after Babbin said it.
Y’know, we plebes can stop with nominalizing these turncoats as allies. They aren’t. Not remotely.
@sdferr:we plebes can stop with nominalizing these turncoats as allies. They aren’t. Not remotely.
Apparently we expect them to be, as far as Russia is concerned. How plausible do we still think that is, that Spain is going to send its boys to die for Estonia or even Hungary?
The case can be made that the UK has surrendered to Islam. Grooming gangs, stabbings with no punishment, etc.
Regarding neo’s response to Ben David,
I think it’s because they depend on their Muslim voters to get elected.
This is one of those things I so don’t want to be true that I’m a bit deaf to it – yes, I know how silly that sounds. The implications are terrifying. The demographics aren’t getting better.
they know the US and Israel are motivated and will probably save them from the Iranian menace while they themselves continue to safely posture as the great internationalists who oppose the coarse barbarian Trump and the primitive Americans.
Exactly.
@neo: Plus, they know the US and Israel are motivated and will probably save them from the Iranian menace while they themselves continue to safely posture as the great internationalists who oppose the coarse barbarian Trump and the primitive Americans.
Europeans are having their cheese and eating it too.
I said that!
Niketas:
By “hard,” I mean that one can read in several places that the quote is from a certain person (as I did in this case), and unless one has reason to suspect those sources and looks further, it’s easy to make the error. For Schwarzkopf I assumed it likely, in the age of TV etc., that the quote was really his, so I didn’t go further.
Obviously, once one becomes suspicious of the initial sources for some reason, it’s not particularly hard to find out, in this case. In many other cases, however – in particular Churchill, Lincoln, Mark Twain – it can be very difficult indeed because many quotes remain disputed and of uncertain provenance.
It’s not just votes. There is a significant fear-factor at this point. I listened to this interview yesterday wherein this French lawyer, a courageous man, addresses the political/societal issue that is the Muslim population in France.
https://youtu.be/K6GDzGkveLg?si=HCNs3_PvUJwAbC-w
Sharon W:
Definitely not just votes, although votes are one of the reasons. But as I also wrote in the post, they ” don’t want their own Muslim population to give them any trouble.”
The world was a very interesting place between 711 and 1492. Most of the countries we’re familiar with didn’t even exist as nations during most of that time and most were in very different hands, including our own, of course.
There was no Italy, no Germany; most of Europe was in the Carolingian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, or the actual Roman Empire which hung on until 1453.
Venice went from a fishing village at the western extremity of the Roman Empire to a mighty empire of its own that led the conquest of the Roman Empire (documented by one Niketas Choniates).
Vikings conquered most of the British Isles and big chunks of France, Italy and Spain. The French Vikings assimilated, conquered England from their cousins, and conquered much more of France, which slowly clawed it back over centuries. Other Vikings founded kingdoms along on the Volga that were conquered by the Mongols, then reconquered, and by 1446 were for the first time unified into Russia, threatened by its giant neighbor the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
What is now Turkey was then Greek, conquered by Arabs and Persians, reconquered by the Roman Empire, lost again to the Turks. When Mehmet II conquered Constantinople in 1453, he also took the title “Caesar of Rome”, which his successors kept until 1922.
Nations called “Italy” and “Germany” were still more than three hundred years in the future. There was not even a nation called “Prussia”. “Spain” was also a purely geographical term, with its two most powerful kingdoms, Castile and Aragon, joining in dynastic union in 1469, but there was no monarch of “Spain” until 1494.
Been some changes since then too.
as Groucho marx might have said ‘with friends like this, who needs enemies’
the prophetic Time Traveler warning by the late Dan Simmons, comes to mind,
much like Robert Ferrignos long form dystopia, it depicts a world a century in the future, where Islamism has taken over,
the treachery of the Gaul particularly Chiraq, although one can go back to le Grand Charles, who kowtowed to the Arab, after the Algerian war, some of these elements included supplying nuclear technology, to the Baathists as well as the Shah, the acceptance of sanctuary for the Ayatollah, which allowed him to spread his Da’wa far and wide, which he had been limited by his stay in Najaf and Karbala, the suppression of the Grand Mosque siege, (which has been addrressed in posts before) by French paras, they had more tolerance to islamists on balance, than to nationalists, their role in the aftermath of the Beirut bombings was a relatively noble thing, as they attempted to make Hezbollah accountable, the support fot the Algerian eradicateurs that led to the Paris metro bombingsm miight fall in a different category
the Hun, to use shorthand has been similarly blind from Munich to Hamburg,
their GSSG-9y tangled in the Horn, with Habbash’s gang, but they didnt recognize a greater threat, they also provided dual use technology to the Shah, to Gaddafi and the likes including Saddam
they were the pillars of the oil for palaces program in the 90s,
Spain would not send “it’s boys” anywhere, their worth to NATO is only geography. But then Britain no longer has a navy, beyond a few boomers, so good luck Jack Tarr in the next Cod War.
And that counterbalance to the USA, the EU, can’t even get a loan floated to Ukraine much less allow Ukraine to tap frozen Russian assets (Hungary, Slovakia, and Belgium). They are cheese eaters save the Scandis, Balts, and Poles.
By the accounting of the World Bank, the ratio of military expenditure to gross domestic product in 1976 was 5.2% for the United States, 5.2% for Britain, 3.2% for France, and 1.8% for Italy. Right now, it is 3.4% for the United States, 2.3% for Britain, 2.1% for France, and 1.6% for Italy. The largest proportionate decline would be Britain’s. Don’t imagine each place gets as much bang for the buck given the political elite’s affection for DEI and disgusting social fictions. I do recall in the late Cold War period both Britain and France were willing and able to send troops abroad on their own account (rather than as part of some multi-national force).
The Emperor of the Romans (Holy Roman Emperor) was both King of Germany and King of Italy from the 10th century or so until Napoleon.
@Art Deco:I do recall in the late Cold War period both Britain and France were willing and able to send troops abroad on their own account (rather than as part of some multi-national force).
Well after. France did it what it could to drag out UN approval for the war in Iraq, but deployed their own troops to Ivory Coast in 2002 without asking for anybody’s input. They also fought ISIL in Iraq and Syria from 2014 – 2016.
@Chases Eagles:The Emperor of the Romans (Holy Roman Emperor) was both King of Germany and King of Italy from the 10th century or so until Napoleon.
These were ceremonial titles referring to geography, as the nation-states themselves did not exist except on paper. The Papal States, Venice, and everything in Italy south of them were not even part of the Holy Roman Empire, as they had devolved from the Eastern Roman Empire. Germany and Italy were divided into hundreds of states of varying size and nature: some republics, some states of the Church, and some states held by various degrees of nobility at varying degrees from the Emperor. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Principality of Liechtenstein are the last of these states.
Cdr Salamander published an excellent Substack piece about this. Operation Epic Fury was a kind of stress test.
At the end of the day, we really only have use of those bases if the host nation is gracious to allow us.
Spain and the United Kingdom, really, have done us a favor here. They’ve reminded us of the fragility of many of our planning assumptions when it comes to overseas bases.
I can understand a host nation saying “we let you have a base but that doesn’t mean you can use it however and whenever you want”. And I can understand the United States re-evaluating its relationship with Spain and the United Kingdom.