> Pretty sure those agreements don't say "And you can tell us what to do with our defense assets whenever you want".

Of course they do.

https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/

"To this end, Spain grants to the United States of America the use of operational and support installations and grants authorizations for use of Spanish territory, territorial sea and airspace for purposes within the bilateral or multilateral scope of this Agreement. Any use beyond these purposes will require the prior authorization of the Government of Spain."

"Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee."

▲

yesco 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I want to say upfront that I'm absolutely not trying to say Spain should or even needs to join this silly war.

But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place. Iran is in fact a threat relevant to NATO considering most of it is/was within ballistic missile range. It's also a simple fact that Iran's manufacturing base has been supporting Russia's war machine, which has been a key contributing factor in the Ukrainian stalemate. There is some genuine strategic overlap.

Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?

I don't want Isreal dragging us into wars for it's personal benefit. But this whole conflict has really got me realizing I don't want Europe dragging us into any wars either. The only transactional benefit to those air bases is that they power American global logistics. If this becomes a pattern then I think NATO will likely become nothing more than a nuclear umbrella, even after Trump leaves office. And only as a hedge against nuclear proliferation.

People take for granted that Biden was technically the most Pro-NATO president we have ever had, and likely ever will.

▲

vrganj 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The base is not some favor to Spain. Who does Spain even need defending from? It is a means of regional power projection for the US, granted to them for free as a favor. They've been very ungracious guests lately.

▲

Synaesthesia 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Iran was never a threat to NATO. It was posing no threat when the US launched this war. The entire threat is the fault of US aggression.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place.

Why lie like this? I linked the agreement; the US doesn't maintain everything.

"Each Party shall bear the costs of operation and maintenance of services and installations, or parts thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which it uses exclusively, as well as the identifiable direct costs for its use of jointly used installations and general services of the base."

"The bases listed in Annex 2 of this Agreement shall be under Spanish command... Consistent with the provisions of Article Sixteen, the security of each base shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the each base... The functioning and maintenance of general services and installations of the base, and the management of provisioning for these services and installations shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the base, who shall assure to the United States forces the availability-of these services and installations under conditions which guarantee the operations of United States units. To discharge this responsibility and promptly and effectively resolve any contingency, the Commander of the base will seek the collaboration of the United States forces. The general services and installations of a base are those which characterize it as such and are essential to the operability of the units."

> Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?

The Iran War is one of aggression, and Spain justifiably wants to be left out of it. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...

NATO is a defensive alliance, and specific to... the North Atlantic in theory. (In fact, Hawaii isn't even covered under the NATO setup. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hn...)

The only country in history to invoke Article 5 was the US after 9/11. Spain stepped up, as expected of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...

▲

yesco 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The United States has never activated article 5. Get your facts straight before attempting to use an LLM to reply to me.

The coalition for Afghanistan was voluntary. This isn't even that, it's just flying our planes over Spain's airspace.

Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/intl/io/nato/index.htm

> After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the collective-defense clause, for the first time in NATO's history.

No LLM needed, nor used. Direct from the US State Department!

> Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

It continues to be able to use them. It has never been allowed to use them for things Spain finds objectionable.

▲

yesco 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.

	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is the US not one of those "NATO allies"? I'm not clear on how a semantic quibble that amounts to "Spain and the rest of Europe proactively affirmed their Article 5 obligations to the US" helps your case here. You have, if anything, effectively demonstrated Spain's commitment to the agreement.

▲

Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate to say this, but they're correct, if only pedantically. The claim was:

> The United States has never activated article 5

The US didn't activate it. It was:

> The decision to invoke NATO's collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO's own initiative, without a request by the United States

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NATO_Article_5_contingenc...

Regardless, article 5 was activated _on behalf_ of the US, if not at the US's request.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If we're gonna go to that level of splitting hairs, then I'd suggest "NATO - including Spain - did it without us even having to ask" is quite supportive of my position.

	▲	Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I tend to agree.

▲

Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

Which isn't the situation being imposed by Spain. They're being told they can't use the airspace for one specific military action. They maintain use of their bases in other ways (training, presumably ship refueling, maintenance, etc). They may be able to use the airspace for _other_ military actions in the future.