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

Russian oil never stopped arriving in Europe and this 30-year-old German knows it well because he has earned millions by supporting the system.

JR Ewing, the oil magnate dallasused to repeat that “the essential thing in this business was to always be one step ahead.” If I lived in 2025, I probably wouldn’t be wearing a Texan hat: I’d be a trader in my late 30s with a laptop, a rented office in Dubai, and a German passport. And perhaps he would look a lot like Christopher Eppinger, the young man who, according to an extensive report in the Financial Timeshas managed to become a millionaire by speculating with sanctioned Russian oil while Europe proclaimed from the rooftops that it was breaking dependence on the Kremlin. Because while Brussels talked about “energy sovereignty” and announced price caps, a parallel ecosystem of nomadic traders, ghost fleets and opaque companies continued to move millions of barrels away from the official radar. In that underground of the global economy, Eppinger found his opportunity. The sanctioned oil never stopped flowing; It simply stopped being visible. And he knew how to make it profitable. When a door closes. Christopher Eppinger, marked since childhood by the chapters of dallas that he saw with his grandmother, he found in the war a window to get rich. The young German moved with the same logic that much more veteran intermediaries have used for decades: special purpose companies in the United Arab Emirates, triangulated operations with India or China, sales contracts for discounted crude oil and the logistics of a ghost fleet that operates on the margins of maritime law. While European governments presented sanctions in solemn press conferences, he took advantage of every crack in the system to buy low and resell high. He didn’t need his own ships, or infrastructure, or even physically touching a barrel: it was enough to know where the opportunities were and who didn’t want to look too closely. Showing an uncomfortable truth. The story of this young German is not an anecdote, but evidence that the sanctioning system never acted as intended. Organization reports like Public Eye show that, between 2023 and 2024 alone, newly created companies or companies relocated to Dubai accounted for more than half of the Russian oil exported by sea, displacing traditional centers such as Switzerland and Singapore. According to Bloombergkey figures in the energy trade, such as Murtaza Lakhani, helped Rosneft reconfigure its export chains through the Emirates to keep flows active despite sanctions. And while much of Europe tried to break ties with Moscow, some countries —like Hungary and Slovakia— took advantage of exceptions to continue receiving crude oil and gas through the Druzhba pipeline. Energy dependence, far from being broken, fragmented into a more chaotic, less transparent and more vulnerable system. In this environment, profiles like Eppinger’s are not only possible: they are almost inevitable. The recipe for enrichment. Eppinger’s method follows a clear logic that the Financial Times details precisely. The first step is to move to Dubai, which has become the “Desert Ireland”thanks to minimal taxation, thousands of special purpose companies created in record time and a confidentiality regime that allows operations without revealing the beneficial owner. The United Arab Emirates does not apply sanctions against Moscow and serves as a perfect platform to move cargo, contracts and dividends without European surveillance. The second pillar is the ghost fleet: hundreds of aging, poorly insured oil tankers, with registrations in opaque countries and with transponders that turn off just when the ship approaches a Russian cargo. These ships They are the heart of parallel trade which has kept Russia exporting above the $60 limit imposed by the G7. The third consists of the Offshore transfers and triangulations. The scheme is simple: buy cheap Russian crude, transfer it to another tanker in international waters, mix it or rename it “Malaysian” or “Indian”, and resell it at an international price. A digital business, fast and — above all — difficult to track. And the fourth element is the ambiguous tolerance of the West. As Bloomberg has detailedthe United States avoided acting harshly for months to avoid causing a global rise in the price of oil. In the EU, exceptions and loopholes allowed non-European companies, although controlled by Europeans, to operate without restrictions. Eppinger moved precisely in that gray space: a legally ambiguous but economically explosive territory. The great gray void where everything is possible. The short answer is: it depends. The long answer is more uncomfortable. According to regulators cited in the different sources, an operation can be technically legal if Russian oil is purchased below the price ceiling, transported to a country that does not apply sanctions and is executed from a legally established entity outside the EU. Switzerland even recognizedaccording to Public Eye— that subsidiaries of Swiss companies established in Dubai are not subject to Swiss sanctioning legislation, as long as they are formally “independent.” This legal architecture allows traders like Eppinger to act without violating the letter of the law, even if they clearly violate its spirit. The question is not so much whether what you do is legal, but why it is possible to do it. Will there be consequences? The cracks in the system are beginning to produce visible effects. On the military front, Ukraine has expanded the war towards Russian energy infrastructure: attacking refineries thousands of kilometers from the front and disabled tankers linked to sanctioned crude oil trading. Russia has lost around 13% of its refining capacity and several regions have suffered queues and gasoline rationing, according to the Financial Times. On the diplomatic and economic level, according to BloombergWashington is already studying specific sanctions against intermediaries in the Emirates, while the United Kingdom has begun to penalize marketing companies with opaque property registered in Dubai. In Europe, pressure is growing on countries that continue to receive Russian energy by land, such as Hungary and Slovakia, identified as leakage points in the system. Eppinger’s business, like that of many others, could have its days numbered if the regulatory fence tightens. For now, it is still profitable. Russia gets richer while Europe … Read more

supporting Elon Musk’s version

After nine months orbiting the land due to the Boeing Starliner spacecraft problemsAmerican astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are ready to return home in a ship operated by Spacex. It was at the end of August when NASA decided that both would remain at the International Space Station until the next rotation of crew members in early 2025, but that everything goes as planned has not prevented its return from being fogged by political controversies. The context. Wilmore and Williams were thrown into space in June 2024 as part of a test mission to standardize the Starliner ship, which Boeing and NASA They hoped to start using For regular astronaut transport to ISS, as Spacex does since 2020. The mission was going to last only 10 days, but the helium leaks and the failures in the propulsion of the Starliner forced to prolong the stay of the astronauts until NASA decided May the ship go empty and its crew will stay in the ISS waiting for the return of the Spacex CREW-9 mission. After nine months of experiments in microgravity and space walks to perform maintenance tasks, Wilmore and Williams have a return date: March 19; A few days after the crew members of the CREW-10 mission, whose launch It is scheduled for March 12get to the station. The controversy. The decision that NASA made at the time seemed purely technical: prioritizing the safety of its astronauts forcing Boeing to exorbit the Starliner without its occupants to, then, launch the CREW-9 mission with two empty seats for the return of the “stranded” astronauts in the ISS. However, there is another version of the facts. Elon Musk has been in charge of spreading That it was not a technical decision, but a political decision, taken by the government of Joe Biden before Donald Trump was invested president of the United States. Musk offered to send an additional Crew Dragon ship to bring astronauts as soon as possible, but the White House refused, according to the businessman. “For political reasons.” The controversy, fueled by the accusations of Musk and Trump himself in different interviews, intensified with a crossing of hostile statements between Musk and the European astronaut Andreas Mogensen, who publicly accused Musk of lying, which caused A particularly aggressive reaction of the founder of Spacex. He said: “You are a complete mental retardation.” The script rotation. Although Elon Musk’s statements were refuted by NASA, Butch Wilmore and his family have put another possibility on the table: that Musk is right. In a recent press conference from the ISS, The astronaut gave credibility to the Musk version stating that the businessman had been “absolutely factual.” Although he also clarified not to know the exact details of the decision process. He added more firewood his daughter Daryn in a Video uploaded to a social network in which he declared to be very frustrated with the situation: “There is a lot of politics, there are many things that I have no freedom to say and that I do not know fully. But there have been problems. There has been negligence. And that is why this has continued to delay. There has been one problem after another.” What does NASA say. NASA’s senior officials, such as Ken Bowersox and Steve Stich, reiterated that the extended stay of astronauts was motivated only for technical and operational reasonsrelated to the security and logistics of the International Space Station. Spacex offered alternatives to the official plan in 2024, admitted the officials, but were rejected not by political motivations, but by budgetary and technical considerations that prioritized the operational continuity of the ISS, they sentenced. As an end point, the NASA has published a summary Of all that Wilmore and Williams have done these nine months with their colleagues from the CREW-9 mission: more than 900 hours dedicated to key scientific research on biomanuffing, space agriculture, advanced exercise systems and studies on microorganisms in microgravity. Images | POT In Xataka | Jared Isaacman still does not direct NASA, but it is already seen as the last nail in the coffin of a space giant: Boeing

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.