Why is the US putting Spain in its crosshairs?

Spain in the US crosshairs: bases, Gibraltar and NATO

Spain hosts facilities that are key to Washington's operations in Africa and the Middle East, and for several of those taking part in the debate, its government has become one of the most uncomfortable voices on the European flank. That mix — useful partner and piece that refuses to dance to the tune being played — lies behind a question that is no longer marginal: why do people say the US is putting Spain in its crosshairs? The answers circulating range from pure geography to prophecies, taking in refineries, aircraft and atomic bombs along the way. It is time to separate fact from rumour.

Why does Spain's position matter more than its economic weight?

The most repeated answer is geographic. Spain sits at the gateway to the Mediterranean, faces North Africa and commands access to the Atlantic, summed up by one participant in a phrase that condenses the argument: "Gateway to the Mediterranean, access to the Atlantic and control over North Africa". Gibraltar and Ceuta come into that equation, two points that turn any regional tension into a Spanish affair.

On top of that is the network of facilities the US uses for its operations towards the south. The recurring thesis is that the American bases for Africa and the Middle East are largely located in Spain, not counting Italy and Germany. There is no official figure breaking down that distribution, and it is worth remembering: it is a claim in circulation, not a confirmed fact. The conclusion drawn by part of the analysis is straightforward: if the peninsula is the logistical foothold, it is hardly going to be allowed to slip away.

The Algeciras refinery and B-52 fuel

Among the technical arguments is one that rarely makes the headlines: the type of fuel consumed by B-52 strategic bombers. According to one contribution, on the coast at Algeciras there is a refinery capable of processing a very specific fuel, the same kind produced in Puertollano, and facilities of that type are scarce. The reasoning that trinc is simple: without that refining, certain aircraft do not fly.

The story has appeal and zero documentary backing. No regulation, contract or report links that capacity to the US military presence. It remains what it is: a hypothesis that would explain why Spain might matter more than its economic size suggests.

The rejection of 500 fighter jets and the 50-year bill

The second axis is political. One of the versions circulating holds that the Spanish government has refused to buy 500 combat aircraft which, according to that same thesis, would incorporate a system to disable them remotely and would force Spain into debt for 50 years. The purpose of those aircraft would be, always according to that account, to bomb targets in the Middle East.

On that basis, the reading is built that Spain has distanced itself from the European hard line and that this distancing is the real reason for the anger. It is the interpretation with the most weight in the conversation, and also the one that relies most on unconfirmed attributions. Neither party has published the details of the contract or the real figure of the commitment.

Segarro and the third vertex of the map

A third name appears again and again: Segarro. The distrust rests on the idea that Washington and its regional allies have maintained a close relationship with Rabat for decades, and on episodes such as the entry of migrants into Ceuta. From there comes the suspicion that any pressure on Spain has a neighbourhood component.

It is slippery ground. Known facts are mixed with suspicions and with future scenarios that no one has confirmed. What it does reflect is a change of mood: the relationship with the US is no longer read as a stable alliance and is starting to be read as a standoff.

Is Spain really a military target?

It is time to turn the volume down here. Against the invasion scenarios in circulation — including the old prophecy of an attack from southern Europe, revived during the Yugoslav wars and fuelled by the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade — the most solid answer is the opposite one: Spain can neither leave NATO nor be attacked without consequences, because its bases are too useful and its position too convenient.

The argument is supported by history: while Europe bled itself dry in two world wars and later in the Cold War, Spain stayed out of the front line. The prophecy, say the most sceptical, only works if everyone acts as if it were true.

Does Spain have the capacity to build nuclear weapons?

The final piece of the story is atomic, and here the leap is a big one. One of the theses claims that Spain has everything needed to build the bomb and that, in less than three months, it could have half a dozen devices, especially if the treaties signed in another context are weakened. It is a claim without official confirmation, resting on the idea that without nuclear deterrence you count for nothing on the world board.

With all this, the question is not whether the US has an interest in Spain — it does — but what exactly it is after. Pressuring an awkward partner, securing the southern flank or correcting a foreign policy course it does not like. Probably all at once. And what if the real target is not Spain, but what Spain controls?