Hosts Have Power Over Dangerous Guests:  Spain Shows How Countries Hosting U.S. Bases Can Push for Peace

Amid a seeming flood of terrible news, the string of countries that last week refused President Donald Trump’s request to help patrol the Strait of Hormuz is an encouraging sign. For the first three weeks of a war that many experts have characterized as illegal under both U.S. and international law, Spain was initially the rare country to stand up to Trump by refusing to allow the use of U.S. bases it hosts for attacks on Iran. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez described the war as “reckless and illegal,” and continues to stand his ground.

Despite widespread global opposition to the attacks, the U.S. can wage the war in part because of its vast network of military bases in the Middle East, Europe, and beyond. Two U.S./Spanish bases in southern Spain are longstanding logistics hubs that have provided U.S. forces access to the Mediterranean Sea to launch military operations into Africa and the Middle East, including the 2003 U.S.-led war on Iraq. While Spain has said “no” to the U.S. using its bases in a new Middle East war, more than a dozen countries have allowed the use of U.S. installations on their soil as part of the conflict.

Given the role these bases are playing in enabling the fighting, host countries share responsibility for the war, along with the U.S. and Israeli governments. Which means they share some responsibility for the war’s killing and injury, displacement and destruction, for violations of international law, and for any potential war crimes, such as the killing of at least 165 civilians at the Minab girls school.

The Spanish government and others hosting U.S. bases during prior conflicts have shown there is another path by refusing to support war. Countries hosting U.S. bases should be emboldened by governments refusing to assist in patrolling the Strait of Hormuz. They can and must put a stop to the U.S. government using their territory to support any aspect of this war other that any legitimate defense of their citizens. They can go further to pressure President Donald Trump to stop the fighting, which has already caused so much harm and risks spiraling out of control into complete global economic calamity and a regional (or even world) war that could significantly eclipse the damage of past conflicts in the Middle East.

The Infrastructure for War

Military bases, by design, provide infrastructure for war, not peace. The reason the Iranian military has attacked many of its neighbors is that they host U.S. bases, which are launching and supporting the planes and ships bombing Iran, and providing surveillance, communications, and logistical support to sustain the war.

Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, for example, hosts the U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and led the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bahrain is home to the Navy fleet for the entire region. Kuwait offers installations that serve as a major hub for the Army. Nearby, there are additional bases in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Iraq, and Israel itself.

In other conflicts, and especially in Africa since the start of the so-called war on terror, the U.S. military has used Morón Air Base and Naval Station Rota as key launchpads for deploying military power. Because of Spain’s refusal to allow the use of its bases for the Iran war, however, at least 15 U.S. aircraft—including critical KC-135 aerial refueling tankers—left Spain, with several landing at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

Ramstein is one of the most important bases for coordinating U.S. military operations globally, including drones and troop deployments. A nearby Army hospital treats seriously wounded military personnel from the war zones.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially refused to allow the use of U.S. bases in U.K.-controlled territory. He then reversed course and allowed a growing range of “defensive operations” from at least one base in Britain and one on British-controlled Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, following criticism from Trump and Iranian attacks on U.S./U.K. bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia.

Farther away, the secretive base in Pine Gap, Australia, is helping coordinate attacks, as it does almost all U.S. military operations worldwide. Dozens more installations in Italy, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey, Djibouti, and possibly other countries may be providing at least some support for the war.

Hosting U.S. bases that are helping wage an illegal war makes host countries complicit in the war and its destruction. “We are at war,” said Australian military expert and critic Richard Tanter, of his country. “We are complicit…most importantly through the intelligence facilities” at Pine Gap.

Some Persian Gulf host governments, clearly motivated to stop ongoing Iranian retaliation against military and civilian infrastructure in their countries, claim their soil is not being used to attack Iran. This may be “superficially accurate,” as former George W. Bush administration official and Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson communicated by email, given that some countries hosting U.S. installations are not immediate launchpads for missiles or planes attacking Iran. But bases throughout the region play support roles of various kinds to enable U.S. forces’ overall war effort. Even bases hosting missile defense or radar surveillance sites perform command and control functions and allow offensive operations elsewhere.

The Power of “No” 

Given the enabling role bases play, host countries have the power to pressure Trump to stop the war, no matter the threats he may make. No bilateral military agreement or multinational alliance, such as NATO, prevents hosts from telling the U.S. government it can’t use bases on their soil to violate international law. (The Cuban government is perhaps the only country unable to exert any power over a U.S. base on foreign territory.)

Host countries can follow the Spanish government’s example: “Spanish bases are not being used for this operation,” said Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, “and they will not be used for anything not included in the [basing] agreement with the United States or for anything that is not in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” which prohibits wars against other states except in cases of legitimate self-defense.

In the past, other countries have barred the U.S. military from using their territory to support wars, such as when the Turkish government did so prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the 1973 war between Israel and neighboring countries, almost all of Europe refused to allow the use of bases or even overflight rights during a U.S. airlift supporting Israel. The Swiss government, which hosts no foreign bases and has a long tradition of neutrality, similarly has refused two U.S. requests to fly over Switzerland in support of the Iran war (while allowing three flights by transportation and maintenance aircraft). It has also banned arms exports to the U.S.

Host countries ultimately have the power to evict U.S. bases. Numerous countries have done so in the past, including France, the Philippines, Ecuador, Trinidad, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia (previously).

Amid rising gas prices and protests criticizing the complicity of countries hosting U.S. bases in places like Greece and Italy, government opposition to the war is on the rise. Longtime European and Asian allies of the U.S., as well as China, are refusing Trump’s request to send military patrols to the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has severely restricted shipping traffic. Leaders in Italy, France, and the Netherlands are speaking out.

Even in the UAE, a leading billionaire who has backed other U.S. initiatives publicly rebuked Trump for instigating a “military escalation that endangers the entire region.” With Persian Gulf countries having suffered serious damage in Iran’s retaliatory attacks, growing numbers are questioning the wisdom of hosting U.S. bases and broader relationships with the U.S. no matter their longstanding tensions with Iran.

The Powerful Thing to Do  

President Trump has threatened to retaliate against Spain by cutting off all trade with the country. The Spanish government appears not to have budged from its position. Spain demonstrated that, even under threats of retaliation, base hosts have the power to say, in Prime Minister Sanchez’s words, “no to war.”

Trump could threaten other retaliation, especially against countries like Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan, whose militaries are deeply integrated with the U.S. military and which have long depended on U.S. security promises. These dynamics and proximity to Iran (Spain is far away) clearly make it harder, but not impossible, for some countries than others to say “no” and to push to stop the fighting.

Some will say that getting host countries to pressure Trump to end the war is exactly what Iran’s leaders hope to accomplish by attacking those hosts. While that may be one of Iran’s leaders’ aims, it’s irrelevant. Preventing the U.S. government from waging an illegal war on the soil of host countries is the right thing to do. It is the thing to do to protect host countries’ citizens from attacks and help prevent further global economic disaster and an even more catastrophic war. It is also the legal and moral thing to do. Lives are on the line, lives are being ended, and the world needs everyone doing everything possible to help end the war.

There is a growing wave of opposition to the war. Global public opinion was the start. Spain was next, followed by countries refusing to join Strait of Hormuz patrols. More countries hosting U.S. bases can further isolate Trump and Netanyahu, making it harder and harder to wage this abominable war. As Spanish journalist Paco Cerdà wrote in praising his government’s decision, “There are moments where heroism is found in saying no.”

The post Hosts Have Power Over Dangerous Guests:  Spain Shows How Countries Hosting U.S. Bases Can Push for Peace appeared first on CounterPunch.org.