西班牙首相佩德罗·桑切斯将当前对伊朗战争风险与2003年伊拉克战争作比较。当时西班牙政府支持美国入侵，但民意强烈反对：仅5%的西班牙人支持军事干预，数百万人上街抗议。伊拉克战争持续8年，约造成30万人死亡，其中多数为平民，并引发地区长期不稳定。战争还加剧了欧洲自柏林墙倒塌以来最严重的安全压力，包括恐怖主义上升、移民危机和生活成本上涨。

桑切斯认为对伊朗的军事升级将带来类似甚至更广泛的经济冲击。欧洲央行的分析显示，如果霍尔木兹海峡部分封锁——战前约三分之一海运石油通过该航道——欧元区一年内可能损失约0.7个百分点的GDP增长，并增加接近1个百分点的通胀率。该估计尚未考虑全面军事冲突的规模与持续时间，因此实际经济冲击可能更大，并通过运输中断、能源价格上涨和更高的不确定性扩散至全球经济。

基于这些风险，西班牙政府拒绝授权美国在其境内军事基地用于此次行动，强调国家主权与国际法原则。桑切斯主张外交解决方案，并与欧洲伙伴和地区国家推动停火与降级。他认为持续的无人机和导弹冲突不会带来民主或稳定，也不会解决全球问题，如乌克兰战争、全球贫困或气候变化。核心选择在于国际体系应由“武力规则”还是“规则力量”主导。

Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez compares the current risk of war with Iran to the 2003 Iraq war. Spain’s government at that time supported the American invasion, but public opposition was overwhelming: only 5% of Spaniards supported military intervention and millions protested. The Iraq war lasted eight years and caused around 300,000 deaths, most of them civilians, while producing prolonged instability across the Middle East. The conflict also intensified Europe’s worst security pressures since the fall of the Berlin Wall, including rising terrorism, migration crises and higher living costs.

Sánchez argues that military escalation against Iran could generate similar or broader economic shocks. Analysis by the European Central Bank suggests that even a partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly one third of the world’s seaborne oil passed before the war—could reduce euro-zone GDP growth by about 0.7 percentage points and raise inflation by nearly one percentage point within a single year. That estimate did not account for a full-scale or prolonged military conflict, implying that actual economic disruption could be larger and spread globally through transport disruptions, higher energy prices and rising uncertainty.

Given these risks, Spain refused to authorise the United States to use American military bases located on Spanish territory for the operation, emphasizing national sovereignty and adherence to international law. Sánchez instead advocates diplomacy and is working with European partners and regional countries to push for de-escalation and a ceasefire. He argues that continuous exchanges of drones and missiles will not produce democracy or stability, nor solve global challenges such as the war in Ukraine, global poverty or climate change. The fundamental choice, he says, is whether the international system is guided by the rule of force or the force of rules.