In the Iraq War, Spain was left “alone” supporting the United States. 23 years later, she has been left alone refusing to help him

If a Spaniard from March 2003 could take a look at the press today (03/04/2026) it is most likely that he would not understand anything. And not because of the lack of context, references or the (logical) change of political leaders. Probably what would catch your attention is the 180º turn in the geopolitical chessboard that concerns the US and Europe. Let’s remember. In 2003 José María Aznar he posed smiling together with George W. Bush and Tony Blair to confirm itself as one of the great supporters of the US in the Iraq war. Today the opposite happens. Spain has become almost the loose European verse for his rejection of Trump’s offensive in Iran. It seems like a simple historical curiosity, but it says a lot about how Europe, the US and their relationship have changed over the last two decades. Trump’s anger. This is not the first time that Donald Trump publicly displayed his lack of harmony with Moncloa. In October, in full tug-of-war over the percentage of GDP that should be allocated to defense, the Republican came to suggest that Spain should be “expelled” from NATO. Rarely, however, has the US leader spoken out with the emphatic (and angry) expression he used yesterday when talking about the negative of Pedro Sánchez’s Government to have the US army use the Morón and Rota bases to attack Iran. “Spain has been terrible”. In the threatening tone that has become the hallmark of his second term, Trump made it clear that he does not take no for an answer. “Spain has been terrible,” started . “In fact I have told Scott (Bressent, Treasury Secretary) to cut all relations with her. Spain said we cannot use their bases. We could if we wanted to. Nobody is going to tell us no. But we don’t have to. They have been unfriendly.” In case there were any doubts, the Republican threatened with cutting “everything that has to do with Spain” and pronounced the cursed word: “Embargo.” He didn’t go much further, but neither that nor the fact that other previous announcements have fallen on deaf ears has prevented his words from causing an earthquake. Especially among the sectors that would have it worst if Washington decided to move forward and “cut off trade” with Spain, an otherwise complex scenario since trade policy does not depend on Madrid, but on the European Union. “No to war”. The problem is not only that Spain has refused to allow the US to use the bases in Rota and Morón to bomb Iran. Probably what has raised the most blisters in Washington is that Sánchez has clearly positioned himself against the actions of the US and Israel in the Middle East. did it yesterday and he has done it again this morning with a deliberately emphatic message: “Spain’s position is the same as in Ukraine or Gaza. No to war.” During his speech, Sánchez even recalled the Iraq war, which left (he denounced) “a more insecure world.” His position also has an internal reading: the ‘no to war’ of 2003 was a shock for the PSOE. One club, three positions. Sánchez’s position is not only important for what he says, but also for where and especially when he says it. His speech clashes with that of other European leaders who have been much more understanding of the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. In fact, just a few days ago their counterparts from France, the United Kingdom and Germany they have closed ranks with Trump. On Sunday the three powers (E3) released a statement in which they demanded that Tehran stop its “attacks” and they advanced their willingness to coordinate with the United States. “We will take measures to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially with necessary and proportionate defensive actions to destroy Iran’s ability to fire missiles and drones,” states the joint writing by Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz. It should be remembered that on Sunday a French naval base in Abu Dhabi suffered an attack with drones and on Monday another drone impact against the British RAF facilities in Cyprus. Tehran has also hit bases with German troops. Madrid’s position thus clearly differs from that of Paris, London and Berlin. Also from that of the community club, which has opted for a more ambiguous position. Although the European Commission has not been slow to guarantee its “full” solidarity with its members in a veiled support for Spain in the face of Trump’s threats, the truth is that Brussels maintains a very different tone from that of Sánchez. On Monday Von der Leyen claimed that “diplomacy” is “the only solution” to the open crisis in Iran and, although he condemned Tehran’s attacks on Middle Eastern neighbors, he did not mention the bombings launched by the US and Israel. Just 23 years later… This morning Sánchez not only insisted on his “no to war.” He also wanted draw a parallel with what happened in 2003 when the Government of Spain, then headed by Aznar, decided to clearly support the US deployment in Iraq, distancing of its European partners. “The world has been here before. 23 years ago another US administration led us to an unjust war. The Iraq war generated a drastic increase in terrorism, a serious immigration and economic crisis. That was the gift of the Azores trio, a more insecure world and a worse life,” Sánchez claimed. Ironies of history, the socialist refers to the famous photo taken just 23 years ago, in March 2003, in the Azores and in which Bush, Blair and Aznar pose smiling. Have things changed that much? The truth is that yes. And not only because where Bush, Blair and Aznar sat 23 years ago, today Trump, Starmer and Sánchez sit (respectively). The most relevant change affects the roles and dealings with Washington. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq caused a fracture of Europe into two blocks well differentiated. One, against … Read more

NASA had been refusing to allow its astronauts to carry iPhones for decades. For Artemis II you have made a historic decision

Jared Isaacman, NASA administrator, has announced an important change for astronauts: the crew will be allowed to carry their personal smartphones. The objective is simple, to allow both photographs and videos recorded during space missions to be shared. what has happened. The publication has been informal and outside the official NASA press page. Via X, Isaacman has revealed that the crew of Crew-12 and Artemis II you will be able to fly with “modern smartphones”. “NASA astronauts will soon fly with the latest smartphones, starting with Crew-12 and Artemis II. We are giving our crews the tools to capture special moments for their families and share inspiring images and videos with the world. Equally important, we are challenging legacy processes and enabling modern hardware for spaceflight on an accelerated timeline. This operational urgency will serve NASA well as we strive to achieve the highest value science and research in orbit and on the lunar surface. This is a small step in the right direction.” Without detailing models or limitations, it makes it quite clear that soon we will see more than one iPhone flying over a ship far from our planet. What was happening until now. Historically, NASA has only allowed Nikon cameras (a Japanese company with which it has had an agreement for more than a decade) to be brought on board. Initially with some of their DSLRs, and recently with the Nikon Z9, the latest generation mirrorless authorized for Artemis. Because. For decades, NASA has operated under an extremely strict security framework for any object boarding a manned spacecraft. The devices must not interfere with critical systems, their batteries have to meet very specific requirements to minimize the risk of fire, they cannot contain materials that can fragment in microgravity and they must pass certification processes associated with an exact hardware model. For the first time, the agency will allow the use of mobile phones on a manned mission certified by its own procedures, marking a significant shift in how NASA evaluates and accepts commercial technology on board. When. The departure of Artemis II, after some delayis scheduled for the month of March. After several dress rehearsals, NASA is not prepared to return to the Moon, because of old ghosts like the complexity of liquid hydrogen. It will not be the first time that a modern mobile phone travels to space, but it will be the first time that its use is authorized within a manned mission managed directly by NASA. Until now, mobile phones and tablets had flown on SpaceX missions under more flexible operating frameworks, serving as a background to evaluate their behavior during the mission. In Xataka | When the United States decided to go to the Moon, it did so no matter what the cost. And that included 60% of all its chips

Elon Musk has been refusing to take SpaceX public for 20 years. His new obsession has changed his mind

If there is something that Elon Musk has been repeating since before Starship was called Starship, it is that SpaceX would not go public until the gigantic Martian rocket was flying regularly. The excuse was that Wall Street likes short-term profitability plans more than multi-generational plans to colonize Mars. But the script has changed: SpaceX is preparing its jump onto the stock market, and not to pay for the trip to the red planet. He does this because he needs a lot of capital for “something more” than Starship and Starlink. The largest IPO in the United States. As revealed BloombergSpaceX plans to launch a Public Offering in late 2026 or early 2027. The company is seeking a valuation of $1.5 trillion (trillion, on an American scale) and more than $30 billion in cash, dizzying figures that would be the largest IPO in the history of the United States, close to the global record set by Saudi Aramco in 2019. Musk has been leaving breadcrumbs in X for days about this change in strategy. When the first rumors leaked about a financing round that valued the company at 800,000 million, the tycoon denied itclarifying that “the valuation increases are based on the progress of Starship, Starlink… and one more thing, which is possibly the most significant by far.” What is that thing that makes another round of investment insufficient? Orbital computing. What is clear from Musk’s latest tweets is that SpaceX wants to raise a lot of cash with its IPO for more than just Starship and Starlink: to develop space data centers. The logic, that Musk himself considers validis the same one that other companies like Google are following, but with the advantage of being the largest rocket launcher in the world. On Earth, AI data centers have two major bottlenecks: power and cooling. In space, satellites can receive sunlight 24 hours a day without atmospheric interference and with the possibility of dissipating heat on the dark side of the satellite, eliminating complex water systems and air conditioning of the Earth. Beyond Starlink. SpaceX already has a constellation of 9,000 satellites in orbit, many of them interconnected by laser links. The plan would be to take advantage of all the knowledge and technology that the company has to create a new constellation of localized AI: in Musk’s words, the cheapest way to generate AI bitstreams in less than three years. Their roadmap is hard science fiction: scale up to adding 100 GW of capacity per year using high-bandwidth lasers connected to the Starlink constellation itselfwhich is already highly profitable. And from there we move on to factories on the Moon and the use of electromagnetic rails to launch these AI satellites without the need for rockets. The umpteenth gold rush. Figures like Sam Altman, Eric Schmidt either Jeff Bezos They are already moving to have their piece of the pie in the orbital data center business. Google created the Suncatcher project and Nvidia collaborates with Starcloudwhile smaller startups like Aetherflux have announced projects like “Galactic Brain” planned for 2027. The difference is that SpaceX has the launch experience and is building the largest rocket in the world, with the peculiarity that it aspires to be completely reusable. It’s just the beginning. If 1.5 trillion is already a historic valuation, a recent report by ARK Invest projects that by 2030, SpaceX’s enterprise value could be around $2.5 trillion in a base case scenario, driven almost entirely by recurring revenue from Starlink and declining launch costs thanks to Starship reusability. Going public in 2026 would not just be a financial operation: it would give SpaceX the capital it needs to become the backbone of AI computing infrastructure, turning an internet service like Starlink into something that Musk himself considers “much more significant.” Images | SpaceX In Xataka | Building data centers in space was the new hot business. Elon Musk just broke it with a tweet

Madrid consumes more and generates less energy than anyone else. And their neighbors are also refusing to install solar panels.

Between the grain fields and the family housing estates of eastern Madrid, the residents of Villalbilla and Torres de la Alameda live a battle that is repeated in many corners of Spain: that of a territory that wants clean energy, but afraid of losing his identity. In short. On the banks of the Viso, a residential and natural area closely linked to family life, a macro photovoltaic solar plant is planned of 70.8 megawatts promoted by Envatios Promotion XXIV SL, a subsidiary of the Swiss multinational Smartenergy. The project, known as “Envatios XXIV – Phase III”, would occupy about 335 hectares of agricultural and natural land, the equivalent of more than 470 soccer fields, between both municipalities. The resolution that grants the declaration of public utility was published in the Official State Gazette, a step that paves its execution. However, the approval has set off alarms in the area: Neighborhood platforms and associations have begun to mobilize to stop what they consider a threat to their environment and quality of life. The spark of conflict. The Platform for the Defense of Visibility complaint the “lack of transparency and absence of participation” in the processing of the project. They claim that Villalbilla City Council was not even formally notified during the process, a defect that could have legal consequences. The macro project, they explainwill cause possible environmental and social risks: local increase in temperature due to the reflective effect of the plates, noise pollution, loss of vegetation and risk of fires. At the information meeting held on October 7, the technicians and neighbors summarized their position in a phrase that has become the movement’s motto: “We are not against solar energy, but rather its poor location. Energy yes, but with common sense.” A wave of institutional opposition. Neighborhood rejection has found a political echo. Villalbilla Town Hall approved a motion against the project with the support of 17 councilors from different parties. The decision reflects the concern shared by residents and municipal representatives regarding the environmental and landscape impact. A few days later, the council announced that it will present an appeal to the Ministry for the Ecological Transition (MITECO). It has also maintained contacts with the Government Delegation in Madrid and has requested a review of the process. On his Facebook page, the mayor, José Luis Luque Lorente, qualified the situation: “The plant is located in Torres de la Alameda. In Villalbilla no permanent facilities are implemented, only some plots will be temporarily affected as accesses during the works.” Even so, the council has joined the mobilizationarguing that any large energy infrastructure must be done with planning and consensus. ANDon the other front. The promoting company has with the favorable environmental impact declaration and that its capacity—70.8 MW—could supply the annual electricity consumption of some 90,000 homes. Some landowners have already signed rental contracts with the developer. “The project is unstoppable, and it is better to make a profit,” one of them explained to Infobae. The debate has even divided the municipalities themselves: while Villalbilla and Torres prepare legal appeals, Mejorada del Campo has chosen for negotiating with the company. This last municipality has achieved reduce plant size by 40%, establish a local employment plan and compensation of 3.8 million euros. Even within the regional administration itself there are divergences: the General Directorate of Environmental Quality of the Community of Madrid issued a favorable report, while the General Directorate of Agriculture considered it unviable for affecting woody crops and recommended finding another location. The dilemma of the landscape. The Platform for the Defense of Viso insists that the problem is not solar energy itself, but the model of massive implementation without territorial planning. As we well knowthe debate is not new. In a forum for El País, energy expert Eloy Sanz warned that “rejecting almost any renewable development is a mistake,” and that “the less renewables, the more fossil fuels.” But he also criticized the use of the term “macro” as an emotional label: “The prefix ‘macro’ is key on an emotional level, regardless of the actual size of the project.” The dilemma extends throughout Spain. The motto “Renewable yes, but not like this” has caught on in rural areas of Andalusia, Aragon and Galicia. In Jaén, neighbors and farmers oppose an installation that would involve cutting down more than 100,000 olive trees. In Galicia, the Supreme Court provisionally suspended a wind farm for failing to evaluate its cumulative impact on the territory. The conflicts share a pattern: rural communities that support the energy transition, but demand order, transparency and balance. It will have to be distributed. The point is that the case of Villalbilla and Torres de la Alameda has an additional paradox: it occurs in one of the regions that produces the least energy and consumes the most. The Community of Madrid generates only 4.8% of the energy it usesbut it concentrates 11% of national demand. Meanwhile, other areas of the country—Extremadura, Aragón, Castilla-La Mancha or Andalusia— support the thickness of electricity generation. This shows that the background is the same: an energy transition that advances at an uneven pace and with little territorial planning. As the country seeks to meet 2030 climate goals, local communities are demanding a say in how and where their environment is transformed. “We want a just transition.” That is the phrase most repeated by the residents of Viso. His message coincides with that of many citizen movements that have emerged throughout Spain: support for renewables, but with respect for the territory. Maybe the key is in what pointed out Eloy Sanz: “The dilemma is not between progress or landscape, but between doing it well or doing it badly.” Between climate urgency and fear of change, Villalbilla and Torres de la Alameda embody a question that Spain has not yet resolved: how to achieve clean energy that is also fair? Image | Unsplash Xataka | The Altri megaplant has caused an enormous social response in Galicia. And now the Government has given … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.