Washington accuses Spain of "putting American lives at risk" by not cooperating with the war against Iran

WashingtonThe United States' standoff with Pedro Sánchez's government continues. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asserted that Spain is "putting American lives at risk" by not allowing the military to use the Rota and Morón air bases in the war against Iran. "Anything that delays our ability to conduct this war as quickly and effectively as possible puts American lives at risk. Spain is putting American lives at risk," Bessent told CNBC. The Treasury Secretary's remarks came the day after President Donald Trump raised the possibility of an "embargo" on Madrid. In fact, Bessent escalated his criticism of the Spanish government afterward when asked about the possibility of implementing such a measure.

An embargo is a far more radical and damaging measure than tariffs, yet it was the only one Trump mentioned on Tuesday. When he attacked Spain from the Oval Office, the president said he would cut off "all trade relations" with the country and cited the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs to raise the alternative of an "embargo." "I have the right to stop [relations], but according to the law I don't have the right to charge [tariffs], which is frankly ridiculous. But the Supreme Court gave us the right. And we have the right, for example with Spain, to stop relations. Or to impose an embargo," the Republican said. As usual, Trump attacks first and calculates later. He has done well with the war with Iran, and now, after attacking Sánchez's government, he is testing the waters.

The trade and tariff issue has already been resolved with the EU's response, which reiterated that Spain is part of the bloc and, therefore, unilateral tariffs cannot be imposed against a single member. Now, what about the embargo? It is considered a trade war tool by which a country partially or totally prohibits trade with another country or of certain products.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court concluded that the tariffs Trump had imposed on other countries were illegal because he had abused the authority of the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling stated that this 1977 law, which has historically been used to sanction enemies or freeze their assets, could not be used to impose tariffs, as it does not explicitly authorize them. Furthermore, it also noted that the verbs included in the IEEPA do authorize the president to "investigate, block during investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, invalidate, prevent, or prohibit… the importation or exportation."

Regarding these verbs, the court clarified that they allow for "actions a president could take to sanction foreign actors or control domestic actors involved in foreign trade, consistent with how previous presidents have used the IEEPA." Previously, this power has been used to impose sanctions and embargoes against Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Applying it in Spain would be an extraordinary and unprecedented measure. But to do so, an economic emergency would first have to be declared, and Trump would have to justify that Sánchez's government poses a threat to the US. Perhaps that's why Bessent declared this Wednesday that "Spain is putting American lives at risk."

Now, could Trump really do this? Omar Rachedi, an economist and associate fellow at EsadeGeo, believes not. "The problem isn't so much the legal terminology as the political and evidentiary threshold: to activate the IEEPA (Illegal Emergency Response Plan), it's necessary to declare an emergency due to an unusual and extraordinary threat originating from abroad, and portraying Spain as this type of threat, being a NATO ally, is legally very questionable," Rachedi explained to ARA. However, he warned that "an imaginative administration could try to construct a narrative about national security linked to military bases or about industrial policy and public participation, seeking to hold out long enough for the challenge to take months and the economic damage to materialize before any injunction is issued." Jennifer Hillman, a professor of commercial law at Georgetown University, echoed this sentiment, explaining to Reuters that doing so would go "far beyond" any previous emergency declaration.