Spain has become a clear outlier in Europe: a country that says no to war and veto power, and yes to rights for people without papers who are already living on its territory. At the same time, Spain is positioning itself as a possible model for a new era beyond veto privileges, war‑driven politics, and a “Fortress Europe” approach to migration. On March 16, 2026, the government again publicly ruled out taking part in any military mission in the Strait of Hormuz, stating that it considers the US‑Israeli war on Iran to be illegal under international law because it lacks a United Nations mandate. Even before that, Spain had denied the United States permission to use the jointly operated Rota and Morón bases for strikes related to this war. Unlike other major European states that have moved closer to the US reading of the conflict, Madrid is drawing a clear red line: only operations that comply with the UN Charter and rest on a Security Council resolution can, in Spain’s view, claim legal and political legitimacy. For the Sánchez government, alliance solidarity does not mean signing a blank check for war; it means tying the alliance to Spain’s own interpretation of international law.
War as a driver of displacement
It is precisely at this intersection between war policy and human rights that Spain’s approach to flight and migration begins, treating displacement explicitly as a consequence of war rather than as an isolated “migration problem.” Spain’s position on war and on migration is linked by a simple empirical fact: wars create displacement. The so‑called “refugee crisis” of 2015–2016 in Europe was driven primarily by conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions where bombardment, state collapse, and armed groups forced millions to flee; in 2015 alone, close to 900,000 people applied for asylum in Germany, largely from these war‑torn countries.
Today, a large‑scale war involving Iran is again being discussed in terms of possible refugee flows and fears of a “new 2015”. European leaders warn that a collapse of Iranian state structures could trigger major displacement with consequences for neighboring countries and for the EU’s borders; the causal chain is widely acknowledged: war first, then displacement, then political crisis in receiving states. Spain’s refusal to deepen its involvement in the Iran campaign implicitly addresses this chain: by trying to limit escalation, Madrid is not only taking a legal and ethical stance, it is also acting on the awareness that military escalation today is likely to become forced migration tomorrow.
Regularizing the undocumented
Instead of answering the fear of displacement with more deterrence, Spain has chosen a different path on migration. In January 2026, the government adopted an extraordinary regularization program for undocumented people already living in Spain, offering a time‑limited residence and work permit to those who meet strict criteria such as having been in the country or having applied for asylum before 31 December 2025 and having a clean criminal record. The government has framed this as a “historic” decision, justified by human rights, social cohesion and the need to tackle labor shortages and exploitation in the informal economy; analysts point out that it is Spain’s largest regularization in roughly two decades and note that similar programs have been introduced in the past by both left- and right-leaning governments.
In an EU environment where accelerated border procedures, “safe third country” schemes and tougher deportation rules dominate, Spain’s move stands out as a deliberate recognition of people who are already part of Spanish society in practice. Rather than keeping hundreds of thousands in legal limbo, the state brings them into a framework of rights and visibility.
EU backlash and a divided Europe
Spain’s regularization and its refusal to participate in the Iran war have both triggered friction inside the EU.In February 2026, the European Parliament held a plenary debate on the Spanish decree, with MEPs and the Commission examining its implications for Schengen and the new EU migration pact; the Commission has stressed that large‑scale regularizations must consider their potential impact on the common migration system and internal security. Several governments—notably Finland—have attacked Spain’s move as a “wrong signal” that could attract more irregular migration and undermine the restrictive consensus behind the new pact, while Madrid insists that the decree is fully compatible with EU law and does not affect external border controls, since all beneficiaries are already inside Spain.
The result is a visible split: one EU member state that combines a hard “no” to war with a large‑scale regularization and a broader EU framework, driven by the Commission and key capitals, that moves toward more externalization, detention, and deportation.
A possible model for a new era
Viewed as a whole, Spain’s recent moves form a coherent pattern rather than a set of isolated decisions:
· By criticizing UN veto power, Spain calls out the structural inequality that allows powerful states to wage or shield wars while blocking accountability.
· By refusing to let its bases be used for strikes on Iran and ruling out military operations in the Strait of Hormuz, it applies that critique in concrete security choices.
· By recognizing war as a central driver of displacement, it links foreign policy to the realities that later appear at Europe’s borders.
· By regularizing hundreds of thousands of undocumented people, it chooses rights and integration over permanent illegality and fear.
In this combination, Spain offers a potential model state for a new era: one in which limiting concentrated power, saying no to unlawful or escalatory war, and affirming the rights of migrants are understood as parts of the same project. For a political concept like Equalism, which argues that veto power, war and forced migration are structurally linked, Spain’s trajectory is more than a national policy episode. It is a real‑world example that another alignment is possible: no to veto and impunity, no to war as a default instrument, and yes to recognizing migrants not as threats, but as rights‑bearing equals within the political community.
For Equalism, Spain’s experiment is not just a case study to observe, but an invitation to insist that law, peace and migration policy must finally be brought into the same field of struggle.
