The Middle East is on the brink of a major war as a result of the US and Israel's attack on Iran. The decisions taken by states at such critical junctures are not only diplomatic choices, but also a note in history. In this context, Spain's stance that it will not allow the bases on its territory to be used in this attack is a remarkable and vital development.
Of course, there is no guarantee that this attitude will not change tomorrow; Spain is a NATO member. However, it would be a big mistake to underestimate this stance today. Because one of the most vital pillars of imperialist wars is the military and logistical support provided by allied countries.
PAINFUL EXPERIENCES AND SOCIAL MEMORY
Spain's decision is not only a governmental choice, but also the product of a deep social memory. In 2003, after the Aznar government supported the invasion of Iraq, the Madrid attacks (March 11) left an indelible mark on Spanish public opinion. Today, the voices of “No to War” rising from the streets of Madrid provide the government with moral armor while at the same time narrowing its room for maneuver. This proves that peace advocacy is not just a chess game between states, but a dam built by the will of the peoples.
LOGISTICAL COMPLICITY AND A COUNTRY SAYING “NO”
When an attack on a country is planned, war cannot be waged by the aggressor state's own power alone. It requires bases, airfields and ports. It must be remembered that the base from which a missile is refueled or receives radar support is as much to blame for the attack as the place from which it is fired.
This is precisely why the ability of a country to stand up and say “I'm not in this” creates an extremely important crack in the seemingly solid wall of imperialist politics. The ability of a state to say “This attack is against international law” has the potential to open a breach in the armor of so-called “international legitimacy”.
ARE DIFFERENT ATTITUDES POSSIBLE WITHIN NATO?
NATO is often perceived as a single bloc, but in reality, countries“ interests do not always coincide. When one country distances itself from the war, it can lead to other countries asking ”Why should we be part of this war?". The more these questions multiply, the more they become a cog in the gears of the imperialist war machine.
WHAT WILL TURKEY DO? A TEST OF SINCERITY FROM RHETORIC TO ACTION
At this point, eyes naturally turn to Turkey. As a NATO member, Turkey will play a decisive role at the international level with its stance in such a scenario.
Especially Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's administration uses a discourse that defines itself with an “anti-imperialist line”. But it is precisely at such critical moments that the extent to which this rhetoric corresponds to reality is tested. Anti-imperialism is built not by punching a lectern in hall meetings, but by stopping a fuel tanker on the route of warplanes, blacking out radar screens or closing bases. Turkey's stance will be the clearest indicator of the sincerity of its rhetoric.
It is known that Turkey's strategic bases, such as Incirlik, already house US nuclear warheads. Whether these bases will be used in the event of a possible Iranian attack will be the most concrete indicator of Ankara's position not only in words but also in deeds.
A LESSON FOR THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD
Today, there are many foreign military bases all over the world. But the world would be a much more livable place if countries adopted a simple principle: “Our territory will not be used to attack other peoples”. Spain's stand today is a concrete and courageous example of this principle.
YES, maybe tomorrow this attitude will change, the pressures will prevail. But the following words spoken today are a note in history: “We will not be part of this attack.”
History preserves the courageous signature of those who were able to say “stop” in front of the giants, not just those who remained silent on the side of the powerful.