March 12, 2026
EurActiv
By Inés Fernández-Pontes
(EurActiv) — Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is using the US-Israel war in Iran to revive one of Spain’s most divisive political memories, and to force the conservative opposition into an uncomfortable debate about its past.
In a televised address last week, the prime minister made his position clear: “No to war”. The message has raised his international profile, casting him as Europe’s most outspoken critic of Donald Trump over the conflict.
Madrid has repeatedly argued that the war breaches international law. It has also blocked the USfrom using its joint military bases for the operation, prompting Trump to threaten sweeping trade retaliation against the country.
But Sánchez’s message is also primed for his electorate. “Twenty-three years ago, another decision dragged us into war in the Middle East,” he said in his address, arguing the 2003 invasion of Iraq made the world “more unstable and unsafe”.
At the time, Spain’s conservative government under prime minister José María Aznar strongly backed US President George W. Bush and joined the US-led coalition, eventually deploying more than 2,600 troops to the region.
Spain’s participation in the war proved deeply controversial at home, with around 90% of Spaniards opposed to the war. According to Ignacio Molina, a senior expert at the Elcano Royal Institute, the intervention triggered a fierce debate about its legitimacy as millions took to the streets in protest.
Spain had traditionally followed a similar diplomatic line to France and Germany. Both countries objected to the US intervention, deeming it “unjustified” and contrary to international law.
But Aznar’s strong alliance with Washington on Iraq turned into a political liability in the run-up to the 2004 election, when the centre-right was widely expected to secure a third consecutive term in power.
Despite the PP holding an absolute majority and leading in the polls, the socialist opposition led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero built his campaign around popular opposition to José María Aznar’s support for the war. “No to war” was a refrain at Zapatero rallies – one that Sánchez has taken up today.
The attack
On 11 March 2004, just three days before the vote, coordinated jihadist attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda struck Madrid’s rail network, killing nearly 200 people.
The public largely blamed the attacks on Aznar’s alliance with the US, though prominent expertsdispute a direct causal link. Zapatero was propelled to victory and immediately withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.
The episode scarred the PP and “gave birth to the idea that supporting the US in interventionist adventures to change regimes… would not lead to anything good,” says Molina.
To this day, Aznar claims that Spanish forces were only deployed for humanitarian purposes, not combat. Yet opposition parties contest this assertion, highlighting that Spanish soldiers participated in high-risk operations, which led to the death of 11 personnel.
Old wounds
This episode has led PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo to be more cautious in commenting on the ongoing Iran war.
“The Iranian regime oppresses its own citizens, pursues nuclear weapons, finances terrorism and destabilises the region. No democrat can deny this reality… the fewer tyrants in the world, the better,” he said last week.
Feijóo stressed Spain “cannot stand alone” and must “preserve” its relations with the US, despite “disagreements” with Trump. “We all want to stop the war, and we all want peace,” he said, while at the same time affirming that international law must be respected.
Still, socialists continue to link Feijóo to Aznar and Spain’s support for the Iraq war.
With Spain entering a regional election cycle, the political gains from this confrontation are clear. Sánchez has already taken the “no to war” message to a rally in Castilla y León, which votes on Sunday, accusing the right of hypocrisy for backing the Iran strikes.
“Those who dragged us into a war in 2003… against Spanish public opinion, are once again supporting the war in Iran, proving that they have learned nothing,” he said.
Juan Miguel Becerra, a political analyst who has worked for the socialist party on election campaigns, says that “Sánchez’s defence of international law mobilises the left while winning over centrist voters with an anti-interventionist, anti-military stance.”
Spain’s next general election is not due until 2027. But Sánchez’s recent regional defeats, a fragile parliamentary majority, and corruption probes involving figures close to his government underline the limits of his domestic position, despite his rising international support.
Europe’s Quiet Break With Trump’s War – OpEd
March 12, 2026
By Alice Johnson
Europe is not openly rebelling against Washington over the war with Iran. There has been no dramatic summit walkout, no grand declaration of transatlantic rupture, no sweeping speech announcing a new European doctrine. But that is precisely what makes the moment worth noticing. The distance is there all the same—subtle, careful, and unmistakable. What Europe seems to be doing is not confronting Trump head-on. It is something quieter and, in its own way, more consequential: refusing to fully inherit another American war in the Middle East.
That distinction matters. In Washington, wars are often framed as tests of resolve, credibility, and strength. In Europe, they are more often experienced as instability with a delayed fuse. What begins as an American military decision rarely stays confined to the battlefield. It arrives in Europe as economic pressure, disrupted transport, higher energy anxiety, domestic political tension, and renewed dependence on decisions made elsewhere. For many European governments, the issue is no longer just whether a war can be justified in theory. It is whether they are once again being asked to absorb the consequences of a conflict they did not choose.
This is where the political mood in Europe has begun to shift. Even governments that are hardly hostile to Trump seem increasingly uneasy with the idea that escalation should automatically be treated as strategy. The old assumption—that American force creates order and that allies should eventually fall in line—looks less persuasive than it once did. Europe has heard this language before. It has heard that intervention is necessary, that pressure will restore deterrence, that military action will produce stability. It has also watched those promises collapse into longer crises, deeper fragmentation, and new waves of insecurity.
The European response has therefore been notable less for its drama than for its restraint. The language coming from European capitals has not been triumphant or ideological. It has been cautious, legalistic, and wary. Critics may dismiss that tone as weak or indecisive. But it may reflect something more serious: a recognition that widening war in the Middle East does not serve Europe’s interests, and that political maturity sometimes means resisting the emotional pull of escalation.
There is also a practical side to this unease. Europe cannot treat the region as a distant theater. The economic aftershocks are too immediate. Air travel, shipping, insurance, fuel costs, and market confidenceall react far more quickly than speeches do. Every major Middle Eastern conflict reminds Europe of a basic reality that Washington often seems able to postpone: geography still matters. The chaos does not remain over there. It travels through supply chains, financial systems, migration routes, and public opinion. It enters domestic life.
That is one reason Europe’s discomfort should not be mistaken for passivity. What some in Washington would call hesitation may actually be a more sober reading of power. European leaders know they are unlikely to stop an American war by openly denouncing it. But they can refuse to romanticize it. They can decline to sanctify escalation as wisdom. They can signal, however quietly, that not every act of American force deserves automatic political endorsement from its allies.
This matters not only because of Iran, but because of the broader question it raises about the future of the Western alliance. Trump has long presented himself as a man of peace through strength, a leader who disdains the old foreign policy establishment even while reproducing some of its most dangerous instincts. Europe has reason to notice that contradiction. If Washington increasingly treats war as a demonstration of will, allies will eventually begin to ask whether reliance on the United States also means exposure to American impulsiveness. A security guarantee is one thing. Strategic dependency is another.
Europe’s emerging distance from this war may therefore signal something larger than a disagreement over one conflict. It may point to a slow change in how European governments understand their place in an era of renewed American unilateralism. They may not be ready to fully break with Washington. They may not even want to. But they do appear less willing than before to confuse alliance with obedience.
That is the quiet break now taking shape. It is not loud enough to satisfy activists, nor sharp enough to alter the war overnight. But it reflects a deeper instinct that has been growing in Europe for years: the belief that not every war launched in the name of order produces order, and that not every crisis demands submission to Washington’s logic.
For Europe, that is not betrayal. It is overdue realism.
Alice Johnson
Alice Johnson is a policy analyst and writer focused on global affairs, peacebuilding, and social impact. She explores the intersection of diplomacy, human rights, and civic movements, aiming to highlight stories that bridge understanding across nations. Contact: Itsjohnsonoriginal[at]gmail.com | Twitter: @ImAliceJohnson
March 12, 2026
By Alice Johnson
Europe is not openly rebelling against Washington over the war with Iran. There has been no dramatic summit walkout, no grand declaration of transatlantic rupture, no sweeping speech announcing a new European doctrine. But that is precisely what makes the moment worth noticing. The distance is there all the same—subtle, careful, and unmistakable. What Europe seems to be doing is not confronting Trump head-on. It is something quieter and, in its own way, more consequential: refusing to fully inherit another American war in the Middle East.
That distinction matters. In Washington, wars are often framed as tests of resolve, credibility, and strength. In Europe, they are more often experienced as instability with a delayed fuse. What begins as an American military decision rarely stays confined to the battlefield. It arrives in Europe as economic pressure, disrupted transport, higher energy anxiety, domestic political tension, and renewed dependence on decisions made elsewhere. For many European governments, the issue is no longer just whether a war can be justified in theory. It is whether they are once again being asked to absorb the consequences of a conflict they did not choose.
This is where the political mood in Europe has begun to shift. Even governments that are hardly hostile to Trump seem increasingly uneasy with the idea that escalation should automatically be treated as strategy. The old assumption—that American force creates order and that allies should eventually fall in line—looks less persuasive than it once did. Europe has heard this language before. It has heard that intervention is necessary, that pressure will restore deterrence, that military action will produce stability. It has also watched those promises collapse into longer crises, deeper fragmentation, and new waves of insecurity.
The European response has therefore been notable less for its drama than for its restraint. The language coming from European capitals has not been triumphant or ideological. It has been cautious, legalistic, and wary. Critics may dismiss that tone as weak or indecisive. But it may reflect something more serious: a recognition that widening war in the Middle East does not serve Europe’s interests, and that political maturity sometimes means resisting the emotional pull of escalation.
There is also a practical side to this unease. Europe cannot treat the region as a distant theater. The economic aftershocks are too immediate. Air travel, shipping, insurance, fuel costs, and market confidenceall react far more quickly than speeches do. Every major Middle Eastern conflict reminds Europe of a basic reality that Washington often seems able to postpone: geography still matters. The chaos does not remain over there. It travels through supply chains, financial systems, migration routes, and public opinion. It enters domestic life.
That is one reason Europe’s discomfort should not be mistaken for passivity. What some in Washington would call hesitation may actually be a more sober reading of power. European leaders know they are unlikely to stop an American war by openly denouncing it. But they can refuse to romanticize it. They can decline to sanctify escalation as wisdom. They can signal, however quietly, that not every act of American force deserves automatic political endorsement from its allies.
This matters not only because of Iran, but because of the broader question it raises about the future of the Western alliance. Trump has long presented himself as a man of peace through strength, a leader who disdains the old foreign policy establishment even while reproducing some of its most dangerous instincts. Europe has reason to notice that contradiction. If Washington increasingly treats war as a demonstration of will, allies will eventually begin to ask whether reliance on the United States also means exposure to American impulsiveness. A security guarantee is one thing. Strategic dependency is another.
Europe’s emerging distance from this war may therefore signal something larger than a disagreement over one conflict. It may point to a slow change in how European governments understand their place in an era of renewed American unilateralism. They may not be ready to fully break with Washington. They may not even want to. But they do appear less willing than before to confuse alliance with obedience.
That is the quiet break now taking shape. It is not loud enough to satisfy activists, nor sharp enough to alter the war overnight. But it reflects a deeper instinct that has been growing in Europe for years: the belief that not every war launched in the name of order produces order, and that not every crisis demands submission to Washington’s logic.
For Europe, that is not betrayal. It is overdue realism.
Alice Johnson
Alice Johnson is a policy analyst and writer focused on global affairs, peacebuilding, and social impact. She explores the intersection of diplomacy, human rights, and civic movements, aiming to highlight stories that bridge understanding across nations. Contact: Itsjohnsonoriginal[at]gmail.com | Twitter: @ImAliceJohnson
Several Cardinals Show Grave Concern About Iran War; McElroy Says It’s Not A Just War
March 12, 2026
Residents in Tehran, Iran on the fourth day of US-Israeli air strikes, 3 March 2026. Photo Credit: Avash Media, Wikipedia Commons
March 12, 2026
EWTN News
By Tyler Arnold
Several members of the Catholic hierarchy are expressing grave concerns about the American and Israeli military conflict with Iran, and at least one cardinal said the U.S. decision to launch the initial attacks fails to meet the criteria of a “just war” based on Catholic criteria.
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered joint strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 amid inconclusive U.S.-Iranian negotiations related to uranium enrichment. In response, Iran launched strikes on U.S. bases and forces, Israel, and the Gulf states.
“At this present moment, the U.S. decision to go to war against Iran fails to meet the just war threshold for a morally legitimate war in at least three requirements,” Cardinal Robert McElroy, archbishop of Washington, D.C., said in an interview with the archdiocesan Catholic Standard.
McElroy noted that the Church recognizes six conditions for a war to be just. The war must be waged by a proper authority, it must have a just cause, it must have the right intention, it must have a reasonable chance of success, it must be a last resort, and the damage caused by the war must not be more harmful than the evil it is meant to destroy.
“The criterion of just cause is not met because our country was not responding to an existing or imminent and objectively verifiable attack by Iran,” McElroy said.
McElroy said the “right intention” criterion is also not met: “One of the most worrying elements of these first days of the war in Iran is that our goals and intentions are absolutely unclear, ranging from the destruction of Iran’s conventional and nuclear weapons potential to the overthrow of its regime to the establishment of a democratic government to unconditional surrender.”
At times, Trump has said he would potentially work with new Iranian leaders but has also urged the Iranian people to overthrow the government at other times. The previous supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a strike and has been replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. Iran has not shown any interest in returning to negotiations or making more concessions since the war began.
McElroy also said “it is far from clear that the benefits of this war will outweigh the harm which will be done.” He called the Middle East “the most unstable region in the world, and the most unpredictable.”
“Already the war has had unintended consequences,” McElroy said. “Iran’s morally despicable decision to target its neighbors in the region has spread the expanse of destruction. Lebanon may fall into civil war. The world’s oil supply is under great strain. The potential disintegration of Iran could well produce new and dangerous realities. And the possibility of immense casualties on all sides is immense.”
More cardinals echo concerns
Other cardinals have also publicly conveyed their concerns about the conflict, including Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
Parolin told Vatican News that “this erosion of international law is truly worrying: justice has given way to force; the force of law has been replaced by the law of force.”
He said people in the Middle East, including Christians, have been “plunged into the horror of war, which brutally shatters human lives, brings destruction, and drags entire nations into spirals of violence with uncertain outcomes.”
“The Holy See prefers to recall the need to use all the instruments offered by diplomacy in order to resolve disputes among states,” Parolin said. “History has already taught us that only politics — through the hard work of negotiation and attention to balancing interests — can increase trust among peoples, promote development, and preserve peace.”
Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, criticized the administration’s characterization of the war, especially an X post from the White House that showed videos of American strikes with the caption “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY” in all capitalized letters.
In a statement, Cupich said “more than 1,000 Iranian men, women and children lay dead after days of bombardment,” and added: “A real war with real death and real suffering being treated like it’s a video game — it’s sickening.”
“Hundreds of people are dead, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, including scores of children who made the fatal mistake of going to school that day,” he added. “Six U.S. soldiers have been killed. They are also dishonored by that social media post. Hundreds of thousands displaced, and many millions more are terrified across the Middle East.”
Following the publication of the statement, a seventh member of the U.S. armed forces was confirmed dead.
Cupich accused the government of “treating the suffering of the Iranian people as a backdrop for our own entertainment, as if it’s just another piece of content to be swiped through while we’re waiting in line at the grocery store.” He warned that “in the end, we lose our humanity when we are thrilled by the destructive power of our military.”
Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, vice president of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), raised similar concerns as Cupich, and commented on how technology changes how war is conducted.
“From distant command centers, military operators stare at screens where maps, radar signals, and algorithm-generated targets move like icons in a computer game,” he told Vatican News. “A cursor moves. A coordinate is selected. A click is made. And a missile is launched.”
When asked about who benefits from the war and who does not, David said “industries that manufacture weapons” benefit financially from the conflict.
“Certainly not the families who bury their dead,” David said. “Certainly not the workers who suddenly find themselves trapped in a war zone far from home. Certainly not the poor nations that will absorb the economic shock.”
Cardinal Domenico Battaglia, archbishop of Naples, wrote a critique of the war in poetic form in Italian, addressed to the “merchants of death.”
“I write to you from this trembling land,” he wrote. “It trembles under the footsteps of the poor, under the crying of children, under the silence of the innocent, under the fierce noise of the weapons you have built, sold, blessed by your cynicism.”
Battaglia asked those perpetuating the war to “stop,” to “convert,” and to listen to the words of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the Beatitudes.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” Christ said in Matthew 5:9.
EWTN News
EWTN News is the rebranding of the Catholic News Agency (CNA), following the decision by EWTN — which was launched as a Catholic television network in 1981 by Mother Angelica, PCPA — that brings CNA and its affiliated ACI international outlets under a single, unified identity. Previous CNA articles may be found by clicking here.
By Tyler Arnold
Several members of the Catholic hierarchy are expressing grave concerns about the American and Israeli military conflict with Iran, and at least one cardinal said the U.S. decision to launch the initial attacks fails to meet the criteria of a “just war” based on Catholic criteria.
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered joint strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 amid inconclusive U.S.-Iranian negotiations related to uranium enrichment. In response, Iran launched strikes on U.S. bases and forces, Israel, and the Gulf states.
“At this present moment, the U.S. decision to go to war against Iran fails to meet the just war threshold for a morally legitimate war in at least three requirements,” Cardinal Robert McElroy, archbishop of Washington, D.C., said in an interview with the archdiocesan Catholic Standard.
McElroy noted that the Church recognizes six conditions for a war to be just. The war must be waged by a proper authority, it must have a just cause, it must have the right intention, it must have a reasonable chance of success, it must be a last resort, and the damage caused by the war must not be more harmful than the evil it is meant to destroy.
“The criterion of just cause is not met because our country was not responding to an existing or imminent and objectively verifiable attack by Iran,” McElroy said.
McElroy said the “right intention” criterion is also not met: “One of the most worrying elements of these first days of the war in Iran is that our goals and intentions are absolutely unclear, ranging from the destruction of Iran’s conventional and nuclear weapons potential to the overthrow of its regime to the establishment of a democratic government to unconditional surrender.”
At times, Trump has said he would potentially work with new Iranian leaders but has also urged the Iranian people to overthrow the government at other times. The previous supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a strike and has been replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. Iran has not shown any interest in returning to negotiations or making more concessions since the war began.
McElroy also said “it is far from clear that the benefits of this war will outweigh the harm which will be done.” He called the Middle East “the most unstable region in the world, and the most unpredictable.”
“Already the war has had unintended consequences,” McElroy said. “Iran’s morally despicable decision to target its neighbors in the region has spread the expanse of destruction. Lebanon may fall into civil war. The world’s oil supply is under great strain. The potential disintegration of Iran could well produce new and dangerous realities. And the possibility of immense casualties on all sides is immense.”
More cardinals echo concerns
Other cardinals have also publicly conveyed their concerns about the conflict, including Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
Parolin told Vatican News that “this erosion of international law is truly worrying: justice has given way to force; the force of law has been replaced by the law of force.”
He said people in the Middle East, including Christians, have been “plunged into the horror of war, which brutally shatters human lives, brings destruction, and drags entire nations into spirals of violence with uncertain outcomes.”
“The Holy See prefers to recall the need to use all the instruments offered by diplomacy in order to resolve disputes among states,” Parolin said. “History has already taught us that only politics — through the hard work of negotiation and attention to balancing interests — can increase trust among peoples, promote development, and preserve peace.”
Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, criticized the administration’s characterization of the war, especially an X post from the White House that showed videos of American strikes with the caption “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY” in all capitalized letters.
In a statement, Cupich said “more than 1,000 Iranian men, women and children lay dead after days of bombardment,” and added: “A real war with real death and real suffering being treated like it’s a video game — it’s sickening.”
“Hundreds of people are dead, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, including scores of children who made the fatal mistake of going to school that day,” he added. “Six U.S. soldiers have been killed. They are also dishonored by that social media post. Hundreds of thousands displaced, and many millions more are terrified across the Middle East.”
Following the publication of the statement, a seventh member of the U.S. armed forces was confirmed dead.
Cupich accused the government of “treating the suffering of the Iranian people as a backdrop for our own entertainment, as if it’s just another piece of content to be swiped through while we’re waiting in line at the grocery store.” He warned that “in the end, we lose our humanity when we are thrilled by the destructive power of our military.”
Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, vice president of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), raised similar concerns as Cupich, and commented on how technology changes how war is conducted.
“From distant command centers, military operators stare at screens where maps, radar signals, and algorithm-generated targets move like icons in a computer game,” he told Vatican News. “A cursor moves. A coordinate is selected. A click is made. And a missile is launched.”
When asked about who benefits from the war and who does not, David said “industries that manufacture weapons” benefit financially from the conflict.
“Certainly not the families who bury their dead,” David said. “Certainly not the workers who suddenly find themselves trapped in a war zone far from home. Certainly not the poor nations that will absorb the economic shock.”
Cardinal Domenico Battaglia, archbishop of Naples, wrote a critique of the war in poetic form in Italian, addressed to the “merchants of death.”
“I write to you from this trembling land,” he wrote. “It trembles under the footsteps of the poor, under the crying of children, under the silence of the innocent, under the fierce noise of the weapons you have built, sold, blessed by your cynicism.”
Battaglia asked those perpetuating the war to “stop,” to “convert,” and to listen to the words of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the Beatitudes.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” Christ said in Matthew 5:9.
EWTN News
EWTN News is the rebranding of the Catholic News Agency (CNA), following the decision by EWTN — which was launched as a Catholic television network in 1981 by Mother Angelica, PCPA — that brings CNA and its affiliated ACI international outlets under a single, unified identity. Previous CNA articles may be found by clicking here.
