US allegedly considering punishing NATO allies - is it realistic to suspend Spain's membership and what mechanisms exist
Kyiv • UNN
Reuters reports on Pentagon letter proposing suspension of Spain from NATO over refusal on Iran. No legal mechanism exists, but political pressure and review of Falklands support are possible.
Publication by Reuters about an internal Pentagon memo, which allegedly discusses options for pressuring NATO allies over their refusal to support the US operation against Iran, has caused a stir. Among the mentioned scenarios are the possible suspension of Spain's participation in the Alliance and a review of the US position on the Falkland Islands. UNN examined how realistic this is from a legal and political perspective.
Can a country's membership in NATO be suspended?
Short answer – there is no such mechanism in the current North Atlantic Treaty. NATO was established based on the 1949 Washington Treaty. The document provides for the accession of new states, consultations, collective defense, and the possibility of a country voluntarily withdrawing from the Alliance. However, there are no provisions for temporary suspension, freezing of membership, or expulsion of a state.
Thus, formally, the US cannot independently "suspend membership" of Spain or any other country.
What can the US do in practice then?
Although there is no legal mechanism, Washington wields significant political and military influence within NATO. Theoretically, indirect pressure tools could be employed.
First, diplomatic pressure. The US could publicly criticize an ally, demand a change in position, or block its initiatives.
Second, personnel influence. The American side could refuse to support candidates from a particular state for prestigious positions in NATO structures.
Third, reduction of bilateral military cooperation. For example, reviewing joint exercises, access to technologies, military coordination, or deployment of contingents.
Fourth, political isolation within the Alliance. The country could be less involved in informal decision-making.
Thus, "suspension" could exist only as a political term, but not as an official legal status.
Why Spain specifically?
According to Reuters, the dissatisfaction stems from Madrid allegedly failing to provide airspace or bases for the US operation against Iran.
Spain has been a full-fledged NATO member since 1982; however, like any other Alliance state, it is not obligated to automatically support all US external military campaigns. NATO is an alliance for collective defense, not a mechanism for automatic participation in every US operation.
This is precisely why an ally's refusal to support a specific mission is politically unpleasant for Washington but does not constitute a violation of membership obligations.
What about the Falkland Islands?
The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory claimed by Argentina. The US has traditionally maintained strategic relations with London, though Washington's position has historically shifted depending on the administration.
Theoretically, the US could: change its rhetoric, adopt a neutral stance, call for negotiations between London and Buenos Aires, or reduce diplomatic support for Britain.
However, the US cannot independently "take away" the islands from Great Britain or legally determine sovereignty.
Is it realistic to punish NATO allies?
Yes – politically. No – legally in the format of suspending membership.
NATO operates on the basis of consensus. If the US begins punishing allies for disagreeing on specific operations, it could undermine trust within the Alliance. This is why even heated disputes among NATO members typically end in political compromises rather than formal sanctions.
What does this mean for the Alliance?
If such a discussion is indeed underway, it signals tensions between the US and some European allies. However, as of now, there is no mechanism for excluding or freezing Spain from NATO.
The most likely scenario is not legal punishment, but pressure through diplomacy, influence on appointments, bilateral military relations, and public signals.
Statements about "suspending Spain's membership in NATO" sound dramatic, but from a legal standpoint, they are almost unrealistic without amending the Alliance's founding treaty itself. The US's real levers are political, not legal. These are the ones Washington could theoretically employ.