Misplaced Morality

“Nations have no permanent

friends or allies. They only

have permanent interests.”

— Henry John Temple

The world usually celebrates Spain for football. When its national team triumphs, the plazas of Madrid and Barcelona erupt into colour and sound, a joyous spectacle broadcast around the world. This time, though, Spain is making headlines for something far more consequential than a sporting victory. As confrontation escalates in the Middle East due to the United States-Israel military action against Iran, Spain has chosen an unusual path in Western politics. Dissent. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has outright rejected the unilateral military action by Washington and Tel Aviv, refusing to allow US forces to use jointly operated bases in Rota and Morón for strikes on Iran. He has also (sl)iced the war cake by warning that such actions violate the principles of international law.

The Spanish Prime Minister’s message has been blunt. “No to war,” Sánchez insisted, saying the world cannot respond to illegality with more illegality, and that conflicts cannot be solved through bombs. Spain’s position is not an endorsement of Iran’s regime. Sánchez himself has condemned Tehran’s repression and regional actions. But he has drawn a distinction between opposing a government and supporting a war against it.

That distinction, sadly, has become a rare commodity in Western diplomacy. In the drama unfolding around Iran, what stands exposed is not just a military standoff – it is the widening gap between the bombastic rhetoric of a ‘rules-based international order’ and the way that order is enforced.

Complicated Reality

For decades, governments in the West (read ‘the US’) have framed global politics with the language of rules. International law, sovereignty and multilateral institutions are invoked as pillars of stability. But history tells us a more complicated but truthful story. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified as a “pre-emptive necessity” against weapons of mass destruction; weapons that were never found. The Libya intervention in 2011, initially termed “humanitarian protection”, spiralled into regime change and state collapse. Across Latin America, Africa and West Asia, repeated covert operations and political interventions have blurred the line between diplomacy and coercion.

The West has used respectable words to explain each episode. ‘Exceptional’. ‘Necessary’. ‘Justified’. But for the rest of the world, the pattern looks less like a defence of the law and more like its selective application. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West rightly invoked the sanctity of sovereignty. Yet, when military force is deployed elsewhere without international consent, this principle is suddenly pawned off as negotiable. For the few who are still sane, this hypocritical contradiction has not gone unnoticed.

Global relations expert Stephen Walt says the credibility of any norm depends on consistency. When powerful states apply rules only to their adversaries while exempting themselves, the rules gradually lose legitimacy. “The result is a world where the language of law will survive, but its authority would weaken,” Walt adds. The weakness he propounds is being exposed quite starkly.

Politics of Energy

Behind the lofty language of security and stability lies a prosaic reality: energy. The Middle East remains the beating heart of global oil supply. A fifth of the world’s crude flows through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a maritime chokepoint whose disruption can send shockwaves through the global economy. It is sending those shockwaves now, making geopolitics and energy inseparable.

Iran occupies a strategic position in this equation because it sits astride vital shipping routes, holds large hydrocarbon reserves and exerts keen influence across a region where rival powers compete for dominance. Any confrontation with Tehran echoes far beyond the battlefield. Oil and energy markets react, shipping routes become contested and global energy security enters the conversation.

For long, Western interventions in the region have been shaped by this calculus of greed. The security concerns are real, but they are enmeshed in the protection of economic interests; particularly the uninterrupted flow of energy. That reality does not automatically invalidate every intervention, but it makes the moral language around such actions appear selective.

The Striking Irony

The Middle East adds another layer of complexity as regional regime here maintains careful or muted responses to confrontations. That is because some depend on Western security guarantees. Others walk on eggs as they protect relationships with both Washington and Tehran. Many are monarchies whose politics are intertwined with strategic alliances. Criticism of Western actions is measured, cautious or absent. That is the sledgehammer of irony striking at the weakening iron of sovereignty.

The result is a region frequently invoked as the justification for intervention, but one that rarely speaks with a unified voice. When criticism does emerge from smaller or more independent actors, it is often dismissed as ideological rather than substantive.

Spain’s stance stands out because it challenges this silence. Remember: Spain is not the most powerful nation in Europe. Nor does it command the strategic weight of the US, Britain or Germany. Yet, it has chosen to raise a question that others are reluctant to confront. That begs the itch-in-the-underpants question: If global law matters, does it apply equally to everyone?

Sovereignty Dilemma

The dilemma confronting the world is illustrated by the covert action carried out by US special forces in Caracas, which brought Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to New York to face drug-trafficking charges. Washington described it as a “law-enforcement action”. But seizing a sitting foreign leader without that country’s consent sets a troubling precedent. Guilty or not, Maduro’s abduction raises questions. If powerful nations can enforce their laws across borders, what remains of sovereignty?

Even for countries like India, this question is not abstract, for its foreign policy has historically been built on the principle of sovereign equality among nations. From independence to the era of the Non-Aligned Movement, New Delhi has argued that stability depends on respect for national sovereignty and the peaceful resolution of disputes. That principle becomes fragile when powerful states claim the authority to intervene militarily without larger international consent.

The issue is not whether Iran’s government is right or wrong. Nor is it about defending any regime. It is whether rules governing the global system apply to everyone. Or whether they are subordinate to power. If the latter becomes the norm, then sovereignty for any nation becomes conditional. India understands this risk. It lives in a complex neighbourhood where external interventions and rivalries are more than theoretical concerns. Where the erosion of global norms is not a diplomatic debate, but a strategic challenge. New Delhi is witnessing that challenge right now, and it is growing.

The Larger Lesson

Spain’s stand will not change the balance of power in the Middle East, nor will it halt the geopolitical rivalry shaping the region. But it does perform a function. It reminds the world that alliances need not erase independent judgement. That even within powerful blocs, nations can question the moral and legal foundations of military action. In an era of intensifying global competition, this reminder matters.

International order is already under strain. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza, tensions in the Indo-Pacific and rivalries between the powers have created an atmosphere of uncertainty not seen since the Cold War. If the rules governing global behaviour are applied selectively, it will only deepen uncertainty. For the world, the lesson is uncomfortable; that the credibility of global law depends not on speeches but on consistency. For India, it lies in continuing to champion a multipolar order – where power is balanced by law, sovereignty is respected, and diplomacy is not dismissed as a weakness.

Spain’s defiance may not end a war, but it exposes an inconvenient truth. It tells every global power and leader that when the guardians of the order begin bending its rules, the world eventually starts questioning economic hierarchy. And the global order itself.

The writer can be reached on narayanrajeev2006@gmail.com. Views expressed are personal.

The writer is a veteran journalist and communications specialist