Recent Items

Are the US and Israel Planning to Use Morocco As a Weapon Against Spain?

Posted on by

If Trump was hoping his threats against Spain would trigger a shift in policy in Madrid towards the US-Israel war against Iran, he must be disappointed.

The Trump administration has issued a cacophony of threats against Spain since the Pedro Sánchez government refused to allow US forces to use Spanish military bases or airspace for its operations in the war against Iran. Pedro Sánchez has also been a rare, strident voice against Israel’s genocides in Gaza and southern Lebanon and other war crimes.

In response, Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut trade ties with Spain as well as remove US troops from Spanish bases, neither of which have (yet) come to pass. But arguably the biggest risk for Spain is that the US — and Israel — begin to foment trouble on Spain’s southern flanks, as we flagged in our March 24 post, “Spanish Government Intensifies Criticism of US-Israeli War on Iran As Trump Mulls Withdrawing US Troops from Spanish Bases“:

Some neo-cons in Washington have proposed that the US should move its troop presence in Spain to bases in Morocco, whose government is much closer to Israel. The US historian and former Pentagon adviser Michael Rubin has even suggested in a couple of articles for Middle East Forum that the US should recognise Spain’s two protectorates in Morocco, Ceuta and Melilla, as Moroccan, just as it has done with the disputed territory of Western Sahara.

We expanded on that danger in our April 10 post, US Considers Withdrawing Joint Military Base(s) in Spain As “Punishment” for Its Non-Cooperation in Iran War: WSJ

The US — and Israel — could also retaliate by stoking tensions on Spain’s southernmost border, by supporting the independence efforts of the two Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which sit on the northern shores of Morocco’s Mediterranean coast. Morocco is closely allied with the US and Israel, both of which supported Morocco’s territorial claims over Western Sahara — in return for Rabat’s official recognition of Israel, in late 2020, as part of the Abraham Accords.

Michael Rubin, an influential neo-con analyst and former Pentagon advisor, recently urged Morocco to launch a civil march on Ceuta and Melilla similar to the one that took place in 1975, which triggered the ultimate withdrawal of Spanish forces from Western Sahara. Those forces were quickly supplanted by Moroccan occupying forces.

In an interview with El Español, the Republican congressman Mario Díaz-Balart, a gusano hawk closely tied to Marco Rubio, made some veiled threats in that direction.

“We have seen that [Sánchez] is a president who acts aggressively and I would not be surprised if the US administration is looking for alternative options that are different from those we have had with Spain for many decades.

…

[I]t seems that Mr. Sánchez values the relationship with the dictators of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela more than with the United States…

QUESTION: Does the United States consider Morocco as an alternative where to take the military bases if Spain continues with its ‘no to war’ position?
ANSWER.– It is interesting, because Ceuta and Melilla are in Moroccan territory. The attitude of the King of Morocco has been positive.
It is always interesting to see what the geopolitical and geographical reality of Morocco is, these are important issues for this country.
The relationship between the US and the Alawite country has remained consistent, it is very important, there is an alliance that has remained even in difficult times.
And those are questions that exist: the attitude of Ceuta and Melilla and whether they are part of Spain or should be part of Morocco are issues that are always open and are resolved through alliances and friendship.
But it is very sad that this individual [Sánchez] is jeopardizing that alliance between the United States and Spain, something that the Kingdom of Morocco has not done.

Now Díaz-Balart, who chairs the US House of Representative’s subcommittee on Homeland Security, has taken this debate to the floor of the US Congress. A one paragraph section of a report by the Appropriations Committee describes Ceuta and Melilla as “Spanish-administered” but “located on Moroccan territory”. It also encourages the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to mediate on the future status of both autonomous cities.

The paragraph in question does not appear in the legislative text itself, but in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies House Bill 8595, which must still be approved in plenary before reaching the Senate and the Oval Office, reports El Pais‘ Washington correspondent Macarena Vidal Liy. It reads as follows:

“The Committee notes the historic alliance between the United States and Morocco, as formalized in 1786 by the Moroccan-American Treaty of Peace and Friendship. The Committee notes that the Spanish-administered cities of Ceuta and Melilla are located on Moroccan territory and are the subject of Morocco’s long-standing claim. The Committee supports efforts by the Secretary of State to encourage diplomatic engagement between Morocco and Spain on the future status of Ceuta and Melilla.”

This is the first time a body of the lower house of the US Congress has questioned the Spanishness of the two autonomous cities, notes El Confidencial‘s North African correspondent, Ignacio Cembrero, who was first to break the story.

A Little Background

For readers who are not familiar with the finer details of Spanish geography, below is a map of Spain’s territory (courtesy of El Orden Mundial). The position of the two enclaves/exclaves is depicted in the bottom right-hand circle.

Both Ceuta and Melilla are semi-autonomous cities, with their own statutes that grant them administrative powers similar to those of Spain’s 17 “Autonomous Communities”, but without full legislative capacity.

More background from the business intelligence website Investment Monitor:

The coastal cities of Ceuta and Melilla are both located within Morocco yet have been Spanish territories since the 17th and 15th centuries, respectively, making them home to the only European land borders on the continent of Africa.

The government of Morocco has repeatedly contested Spain’s sovereignty over the territories, though they were initially designated as Spanish and not a vestige of colonialism to be relinquished when Morocco’s independence was recognised in 1956. It was in 1956 that both France and Spain gave up their Protectorates in Morocco which they had had since the signing of the Treaty of Fez in 1912.

Spain highlights that the territories of Ceuta and Melilla, which also include three uninhabited islets (the Alhucemas Islands, the rock of Vélez de la Gomera and the Perejil Island) had preceded the creation of the Protectorates. Instead they date from the time of the Reconquista, the centuries-long series of battles by Christian states (today’s Portugal and Spain) to expel the Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula.

In fact, Ceuta was conquered by the Portuguese first, in 1415, but then ceded to Spain in 1668 after the Iberian Union (formed by the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castille in today’s Spain and the Kingdom of Portugal) ended.

Melilla was occupied and conquered by Spain in 1497.

That is one of Spain’s main arguments for its ongoing sovereignty over the territories, pointing out that its rule over Ceuta and Melilla preceded its rule over some regions in mainland Spain. This includes parts of the north of the country, for example, but also cities in southern Spain such as Granada, the last Muslim enclave, which was conquered at roughly the same time (1492).

Conversely, Morocco argues that Spain’s territories within its kingdom are a remnant of colonialism and should be given back. However, the UN does not include these exclaves in its list of non-self-governing territories, defined as territories “whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”. Both Ceuta and Melilla have a similar semi-autonomous status as that enjoyed by all other regions of mainland Spain…

Why Do Ceuta and Melilla Matter So Much?

Similarly to Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla’s historic importance stems from their strategic geographic location. Ceuta sits right on the Strait of Gibraltar, directly across the sea from the British territory.

In fact, both cities have served over the years as military and trade enclaves for Spain, linking Africa to Europe, and with sizeable military populations. Ceuta expands over 20 square kilometres and has a population of over 82,500, while Melilla’s size is 12 square kilometres and its population is about 83,190.

The two cities both lay at the bottom of Spain’s regions socioeconomically. They have the lowest levels of GDP per capita, as well as the highest levels of unemployment.

Exploiting Spain’s Weak Link

The House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee is not alone in suddenly questioning the Spanishness of Ceuta and Melilla. Amine Ayoub, a Morocco-based fellow at the Washington-based, pro-Israel Middle East Forum, wrote in Israel’s Y Net Global that tensions between the US and Spain over Iran and NATO “create an opening for Morocco to press its claims on Ceuta and Melilla, with Israel positioned to back Rabat diplomatically within a US-led alliance”.

Similar articles have been published in the American Enterprise Institute as well as in several Israeli newspapers (Times of Israel, Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel Hayom and Jerusalem Post), notes Cembrero:

“´[T]hese articles, as well as the paragraph penned by the Appropriations Committee, are interpreted as a desire to punish Pedro Sánchez’s government for its criticism of Israel and the war waged by President Donald Trump against Iran…

In the eyes of Díaz-Balart and these polemicists, Ceuta and Melilla are a weak link for Spain, all the more so since they are claimed by a country like Morocco, with which the Republican Administration has forged both a bilateral partnership and a broader alliance within the framework of the Abraham Accords. Rabat joined that pact in December 2020.

In signing that pact, Morocco became one of four Arab nations (alongside the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan) to normalise diplomatic, economic, and security relations with Israel.

The Accords have already paid off handsomely for Rabat. Almost immediately afterwards, Trump recognised Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. In doing so, he abandoned the decades-long calculated ambiguity the US had held over the disputed territory and began openly supporting Morocco’s claims. The Biden administration did nothing to change that.

Israel was next to recognise Moroccan “autonomy” over Western Sahara, in 2023. Two years later, the United Nations described Morocco’s autonomy plan as the “most feasible solution” to the 50-year-old conflict over the disputed territory. In April 2026, the EU lent its backing.

Spain, Western Sahara’s former colonial power, also ended up backing Morocco’s plan, much to the chagrin of some of Sánchez’s coalition partners. A recent report by the Royal Elcano Institute found that public opinion in Spain continues to strongly support Western Sahara’s right to self-determination.

The Sánchez government chose to prioritise other concerns such as safeguarding its strategic interests (e.g., by appeasing Morocco at a time when migrant pressures from the Maghreb are building as well as keeping the US and Israel happy) and maintaining stability along Spain’s southern border. The problem is that the US and Israel seem intent on upending that stability — and not just because of the recent rift with the Sánchez government.

Morocco has been a key piece for the US in the region since the days of the Cold War, due to its strategic location astride the Strait of Gibraltar and Atlantic Africa. It is also situated next to Algeria, Africa’s largest country which has long been a close ally of Russia’s. For decades both the US and Israel have worked to buttress Morocco territorially, militarily and diplomatically. That trend seems set to intensify.

Imagen

So, should Spain be worrying even more about its southern flank?

According to Cembreno, perhaps not just yet. The Kingdom of Morocco apparently has bigger fish to fry, for now (machine translation)…

Although Moroccan diplomacy is emboldened by the close relationship established by the White House and the successes achieved in relation to Western Sahara, Ceuta and Melilla are not priorities for now… Amid the profusion of op-eds peppered with threats towards [Ceuta and Melilla], Morocco is silent on the issue.

“To imagine that Rabat can involve its ally, the US, in the Ceuta and Melilla affair is, for the moment, a baseless fantasy,” writes journalist Wissam El Bouzdaini in the Moroccan online newspaper Media 24, which in a rare move also published his article in English. El Bouzdaini, the son of a senior official in Morocco’s Ministry of Communication, expresses the opinion, never openly formulated, of his country’s authorities.

The Spanish-Moroccan relationship is going through “a historic moment”, thanks, firstly, to President Pedro Sánchez’s support for the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco to resolve the Sahara conflict…

Secondly, Morocco is set to host the 2030 World Cup alongside Spain and Portugal, an event of the first magnitude. Morocco is so determined to host the event that it submitted its candidacy six times between 1994 and 2026. Now that it has finally got its prize, with Sánchez’s help, nothing should derail preparations for the event, which Morocco hopes will culminate in a final held in the stadium under construction in Benslimane, near Casablanca.

That, however, is over four years from now and a lot can happen in the interim. It’s far from clear what will happen with this year’s World Cup let alone the 2030 edition, what with the re-escalating wars in the Gulf and Ukraine, the US planning to use ICE as a key part of its security apparatus for the tournament, and Trump constantly threatening to attack fellow host nation, Mexico, and Cuba. Let’s not even get on to the looming economic crisis.

Meanwhile, if Trump was hoping that his threats against Spain would trigger a shift in policy in  Madrid, he must be disappointed. In recent weeks, the Spanish government has confirmed it will not be participating in or broadcasting the Eurovision Song contest due to Israel’s participation. Spain is one of only five countries (out of 35) to boycott the event, which incidentally is sponsored by Israeli beauty brand, Moroccanoil.

This week, Sánchez raised the stakes further by asking the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to protect the UN special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, and other “prominent figures defending international law” from US sanctions. To this end, his government has called for the implementation of the so-called “Blocking Statute”, which allows for the repeal of third-country rules that affect the interests of the EU 27.

Fat chance of that. Von der Leyen, Europe’s “American president,” as Politico EUROPE once dubbed her, never does anything that could displease Washington or Tel Aviv. Also, the VdL Commission is as enthusiastic about sanctioning prominent public figures that go off script as the Trump administration is, even while claiming to be protecting Europe’s free speech.

As for Sánchez, he appears to revel in his newfound role as the US’ biggest antagonist in Europe. Yesterday, he presented Albanese with the Order of Civil Merit for her advocacy throughout Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

As mentioned in previous posts, this is primarily a matter of political survival for Sánchez. As the corruption scandals involving senior figures in his party, including family members, have multiplied, he has decided, quite astutely, that his best form of defence is to pursue policies that are broadly popular with voters. And there are few policies more popular in Spain — and presumably most other countries in Europe — than opposing genocide and war.

If only other senior members of Europe’s corrupt political class would take note.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
16 comments

  1. Huey

    Thanks much for this breakdown Nick. I had no idea Spanish/Moroccan relations were so delicate.

  2. ciroc

    Given that Spain has not yet caused substantial damage to the Zionist alliance, I am skeptical that Sánchez’s remarks are anything more than a political stunt.

  3. JohnH

    The Rota naval base and the Moron airbase near the Strait of Gibraltar are strategically important to the US–much more significant that Ceuta and Melilla to Spain. I doubt that most Spaniards give a rat’s a** about Ceuta and Melilla. In fact, they actually represent a thorn is Spain’s side as a destination for much illegal immigration that ends up in Spain itself.

    Raising the issue of Melilla and Ceuta would have more popular support in Morocco, since they are vestiges of colonialism. The main benefit of raising the issue would be to divert popular energies away from support for Palestinians, Hezbollah, and Iranians to recovery of Ceuta and Melilla.

    What I find intriguing is what would happen if Spain threatened Rota and Moron and the implications for the Strait of Hormuz. I’m sure that Trump and his cronies dismiss such a threat out of hand as utter nonsense, but who knows? Tolls there could raise a lot of money…

    1. Ignacio

      “I doubt that most Spanish give a rat’s a** about Ceuta and Melilla”. A majority among those living in Ceuta y Melilla would disagree. In the rest of Spain count those who would vote Popular Party or VOX amongst those who would scream blue murder. Too many, IMO, even if many of those don’t really care that much.

    3. JohnH

      Melilla, Ceuta, and the small Spanish islets (one in the middle of El Hoceima bay) are symbolically important to Western, colonial elites much like Quemoy and Matsu. They show that the West can park themselves in your front yard, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Nationalist parties relish their ability to poke lesser folks in the eye.

      Melilla and Ceuta each have a population of about 90,000, split fairly evenly between Spaniards and North Africans. Though insignificant to Spain, Spaniards in North Africa would create a tempest in the teapot if the enclaves were ceded back to Morocco.

      Gibraltar is a little different–half the population of the enclaves but with a deepwater port that serves the Royal Navy and with an airbase that serves the RAF. It’s a British poke in Spain’s eye with real, strategic significance.

      Spanish Sahara is a little different. It is geographically much larger, mostly desert, with an insignificant population (65,000 Sahrawis when Morocco took over in 1975.) It has significant phosphate deposits complementing Morocco’s domination of that mineral. It’s long been a mystery to me why Morocco’s annexation ever surfaced as an issue.

      1. St Jacques

        These territories are the leftovers of the endless battles and skirmishes dating well back into the middle ages, long before modern colonialism, when mainland Iberia was at the receiving end of multiple major invasions (Umayyad, Almoravid, Almohad and Marinid) and innumerable coastal slave raids from North Africa. For hundreds of years, the initiative was held by those on the southern side of the Mediterranean Sea. Hence capturing and setting up strongholds along the north African coast or islands was primarily about protecting the Iberian mainland and its Mediterranean sea trade. Today, though close to half of Ceuta and Melilla’s populations are ethnically North African, most want to remain in Spain. So no, things are far from simple historically or politically today.

    4. Bacchunin

      I am not sure about that. Consequences could go far away. It has been recently declassified that King Juan Carlos opined around 1975 that hand over both cities to Morocco would have made very small problem. If he had had such a thing then you can bet your life his monarchy would have finished that year.

      Ceuta and Melilla are not colonial enclaves, or, if you want to define them that way, you need a far more broad definition of colonialism. The cities never were profitable to Spain (even Portuguese Ceuta, 1415-1640, never was either), the main purpose was to fight against berberian piracy, sacking of south Spain ports and capture of Spaniards to be sold as slaves. It was control, not colonialism. The same to the now absurd small islets. Imperial Spain never could fight this problem in despite of the huge mountains of gold and silver coming from America.

      Besides, both Ceuta (a latin name, Septem Fratres, portuguesized) and Melilla (Tarifit toponym) are completely different. Ceuta was always a city, 14 km away from mainland Spain, no problems to be supplied. Melilla was always a fortress, it only became a town at the end of the 19 century. Melilla is totally undefensable, Ceuta is entirely another matter. And of course, they never were colonies (a town and a “presidio”, a fortress).

      Gibraltar in despite of being indeed a crown colony, it is somewhat similar. Its purpose is not to provide income to the UK, in fact is another sinkhole, it is a tool to warrant British control of the West Mediterrean. Ceuta and Melilla were tools to defend Southern Spain, and in fact are in sight or merely a hundred km away. Gibraltar was a tool to support British trade (or imperialism, if you prefer). Britain choose Gibraltar and not Ceuta because Ceuta was surrounded by hostile land, not the case of Gibraltar. In fact, Spain was always the shield of Gibraltar.

      And because of this, UK bribed a lot of Spanish Army officials to grant Spain had his Protectorate of Morocco, merely after Spain lost his last true colonies (Cuba, PR and Philippines), in order Gibraltar was well shielded by Spanish territory. Spain paid dearly for this, not only the Annual disaster but the Africanists, the fascists invited by ambassador Chilton in UK embassy in Madrid and very well bribed.

      So, this is a historic outcome, about the non-existing central authority in the north of Morocco, the weakness of a semi-peripheric empire like Spain which collapsed in the 1820s, and instability in the whole area.

      The relation with Morocco is a very toxic one. Morocco itself is highly toxic. In case of a collapse or, worse, a war with Algeria (which Morocco lost, but highly costly for Algeria), millions of refugees would come to Spain. Spain simply cannot handle this. If something in Washington really wants to deploy chaos, with something like this kills three birds (four with Portugal) with a single shot.

  4. Bacchunin

    Morocco isn’t useful for the US and everybody knows it. Geographically it is enclosed both by Algeria and Spain, any flight from Morocco to Eastern Mediterranean needs to pass through either Spanish or Algerian airspaces (or both). Any naval base is the same thing, it’s enough to see a map. Relations with Algeria are the worst, and Sahel countries are being lost to West. It’s the US who badly needs the Spanish bases and has no sustitute for them. All of this is crystal clear since the end if WW II and the certainty that France would make a shitty mess in Algeria as she of course did.

  5. tegnost

    this is primarily a matter of political survival for Sánchez. As the corruption scandals involving senior figures in his party, including family members, have multiplied, he has decided, quite astutely, that his best form of defence is to pursue policies that are broadly popular with voters.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad

  6. Balan Aroxdale

    Spain, Western Sahara’s former colonial power, also ended up backing Morocco’s plan, much to the chagrin of some of Sánchez’s coalition partners.

    In other words, the Spanish government sold it’s claims in order to support Israeli normalisation with Morocco, and now they receive the typical wages of Zionism: Contempt and betrayal. The Moroccans will get the same in time.

    And still the EU will not much as discussed sanctioning the Israelis. The whole continent has adopted a colonized mindset.

  7. Carolinian

    Spain should threaten to take over Gibraltar as a tit for tat and based on the same principle. They’ve certainly complained enough over the centuries about this intrusion on their territory.

    As it happens I’ve been to Ceuta and Morocco too. Why upset the tourism apple cart to appease a soon to be gone or neutered Trump?

  8. JohnH

    Morocco holds approximately 70% of the world’s known phosphate reserves, making it the largest producer of this essential resource. This concentration significantly impacts global food security and geopolitics.

  9. The Rev Kev

    The Trump regime may make all sorts of threats against Spain but if they carry them out viz Morocco, I think that the Spanish should shut down and evict US forces from those two US bases as no longer being needed as they have Morocco now. I’m sure that would create a bit of a panic with the Pentagon. Duty in Spain would be pleasant. Duty in Morocco would be hot and dusty.

  10. Alex Cox

    What actual loss would Spain suffer if it gave up these two impoverished enclaves?

  11. Luis Aldamiz

    There are two key issues not mentioned here:

    1. There will be elections in Spain in 2027 (at the latest, snap elections can be called at any time) and Sánchez is fighting to win them (polls and regional elections suggest that the right wing could win) with his moderate anti-Zionist stand and the apparent conflict with very despised Trump, including getting NATO exception not to increase military budget above 2%.

    2. Occupied West Sahara has the largest reserves of phosphate, a critical fertilizer that cannot be synthesized, on Earth: 50 billion tons (2nd comes China with a meager 3 billion). These are located in the Bucraa mine east of El Aaioun. That and fisheries are the core economic issues behind the West Sahara conflict, which has been active since I was a child.

    Other important issues are that:

    3. Morocco is weak in terms economic and military, holding no chance whatsoever vs Algeria if they ever come to direct war (they almost did a few years ago), let alone Spain. Morocco has no navy worth that name and has limited natural port availability in the north of the country near Gibraltar (Tangiers is the only sizable port but it’s also a large city very inadequate for military usage).

    4. Morocco is also weak in terms of internal politics: a terrible police state it has experienced several very serious popular uprisings only in the last decade, some country-wide others focused on Arif (El Rif, northern hilly country near Melilla and Ceuta), which is largely Berber and has been demanding independence since the days of Abd El Krim, whose fight against the Spanish protectorate was also a fight against the Kingdom of Morocco which collaborated with the joint Franco-Spanish colonial occupation. It would be easy for Spain to promote a popular uprising against Morocco, especially in Arif. Melilla is in fact a mostly Riffian city in terms demographic (Ceuta is of ethnic Spanish majority however) and the populace prefers Spain to Morocco, very clearly so.

    5. Morocco is expected to have some royal succession soon, as Mohamed II has been quite ill for some time. There’s only one heir but he’s very young and somewhat contested by the power circles of the Majzen (as the Moroccan deep state is called).

    BTW Spain does not own Perejil island: it is neutral territory per the border agreements with Morocco (that the North African state violated impunely on land but failed to achieve in that island in spite of an occupation stunt two decades ago). Spain owns the Chafarinas archipelago however, together with the other “plazas” effectively controlling the northern Moroccan coast except for Tangiers and Oujda.These also extend the territorial waters of Spain (more so if we accept that Gibraltar has no such territorial waters, as Spain claims), making Gibraltar Strait effectively Spanish territorial waters.

    While extremely unlikely this might some day escalate into another “Hormuz crisis” if Spain is antagonized or gets much more assertive than it has been in the last centuries.

    What Sánchez has done that is strategic and not merely electoralist is to reinforce the cooperation with China, which is a strategy that has two decades of history anyhow and is to some extent bipartisan politics. Furthermore, months after the downgrading of relations with Israel to the minimum since Madrid recognized the terrorist colony in the early 80s, they just decided that Trump’s war was the perfect context to reopen the embassy in Tehran. Chinese companies are opening new industries in NE Spain and Spanish business are thriving in China: it’s a major symbiotic collaboration that I’m sure that Uncle Sam feels as a true challenge to his imperial authority over Europe. However it’s not just Spain: France and Italy are also more discreetly heading in the same direction as Spain (with very different brand of governments).

Comments are closed.