Sánchez plays Zapatero's 2003 card
BarcelonaPedro Sánchez usually plays on the attack when he sees a clear opportunity to advance. And the diplomatic clash with Donald Trump's United States represents an unbeatable window of opportunity for him to set the debate on terms that suit him best. There are two major blocs in the world: the militarists/authoritarians (Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, etc.), and the democrats and supporters of the diplomatic path (which he currently leads, at least within the EU). In a country like Spain, with a very significant anti-militarist and anti-American sentiment (a direct legacy of Francoism), and which in 2003 and 2004 mobilized against the Iraq War in a process that would end with the PP's eviction from power, it is playing a winning card.
The reference to the Iraq War and the "Axis of Evil" is lethal for the PP and an Alberto Núñez Feijóo who a few days ago celebrated the 30th anniversary of José María Aznar's electoral victory.
And this brings us to the figure of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who in 2003, when he was leader of the opposition, during the military parade on October 12, remained seated as the American flag passed by, a gesture that caused deep unease in Washington. And not only that, but the first decision he made upon arriving at Moncloa was to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Sánchez is now repeating a script that worked very well for the PSOE back then, basically because it connected with a social majority, as could happen now.
Clash with the US
And now, the big question: why can Sánchez afford to stand up to such a dangerous figure as Donald Trump? Well, here we must emphasize that Sánchez also has good cards, those corresponding to what we could define as the discreet charm of a medium-sized power like Spain, which also belongs to two very important clubs, the EU and NATO. Being part of the EU shields Spain from commercial retaliation, and although there may be European leaders annoyed with Sánchez, they have no choice but to defend Spain, as doing otherwise would mean the end of the European project.
Trump also cannot easily do without Spain in NATO, in this case for geographical reasons. If you ask any of his generals, they will tell you that the North Atlantic Alliance cannot afford to lose control of the Iberian Peninsula, which is the southern gateway to the Mediterranean. The same arguments that benefited Franco in his day now benefit Sánchez.
Amazon's investment
Trump could, it is true, pressure American companies to stop investing in Spain, but here he would clash with another problem: Spain is a market of 50 million consumers in which American companies make a lot of money. It is not – and forgive the comparison – Andorra. This very week, Amazon has announced within the framework of the Mobile World Congress an investment of 18 billion euros to build data centers in Aragón. It is unthinkable that Jeff Bezos would back down and risk losing billions just to satisfy a tantrum from Trump.
In conclusion, we could say that Pedro Sánchez's apparent bravery is not naivety, but rather a political calculation of the real balance of power between Spain and the United States. Only if the "Fúria Èpica" operation ends in the coming days with an undeniable victory for the United States and Israel, the fall of the ayatollah regime, and a democratic and peaceful transition in Iran, that is, if the opposite of what happened in Iraq twenty years ago occurs, would Sánchez have problems. But right now, that scenario is very unlikely.