The geopolitical landscape of North Africa has always influenced the course of Spanish society. Following the events in the Middle East, it is undergoing a silent but profound transformation in Washington’s corridors. The historic dispute between Spain and Morocco over the sovereignty of Ceuta and Melilla has leapt from the borders of the Mediterranean to sit on the agendas of the leading conservative think tanks in the United States, where an increasingly loud strand of opinion is beginning to question Spanish territorial integrity in favor of its Maghrebi ally, after the Spanish government’s lack of support for bombings and military actions against Iran.
This trend is not the product of chance, but the culmination of a strategic seduction process that Morocco has successfully cultivated in circles close to the hard wing of the Republican Party of Donald Trump. In a context marked by global instability, the narrative emanating from institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or the Middle East Forum suggests that the White House should go further than its support for the autonomy plan for the Western Sahara and apply a logic similar to the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla.
THE WASHINGTON STRATEGIC SHIFT
The central figure of this movement is Michael Rubin, an AEI analyst, who has led the rhetorical charge urging a United States administration under the influence of Donald Trump to ‘correct a historical mistake.’ According to this view, recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the Spanish cities is the next logical step after breaking the status quo on the Western Sahara.
The analysts of this current argue that the relationship with the Moroccan kingdom is now more vital to the United States’ national interests than maintaining automatic solidarity with a European ally that they often perceive as hesitant in its defense commitments.
For these think tanks, Morocco has solidified itself as an important non-NATO ally that offers stability and security cooperation they consider superior to European border management. They argue that unconditional support for Rabat in all its territorial claims would shield the Alliance’s southern flank from Russian and Chinese influence in Africa, turning the kingdom into the definitive gendarme of the Strait of Gibraltar. In this framework, Spanish sovereignty over the enclaves is seen as an anomaly hindering the consolidation of a strong regional partner.
THE RHETORIC OF SELECTIVE ANTICOLONIALISM
It is striking to see the use of language traditionally foreign to the American right to justify these positions. Several reports published recently describe Ceuta and Melilla as «colonial enclaves» or «illegitimate footholds» on African soil. This narrative seeks to strip the autonomous cities of their constitutional status as integral parts of the Spanish nation to portray them as vestiges of an imperial past Madrid should voluntarily abandon.
By labeling the Spanish presence as a «colonial heritage», these think tanks aim to align U.S. foreign policy with a sense of African decolonization, ignoring centuries of shared history and the democratic will of the citizens of both territories.
This discourse not only attacks historical legitimacy but also marks the cities as structural weaknesses for the continent’s security. It is argued that Ceuta and Melilla are constant focal points of migratory and customs tensions that only serve to generate unnecessary border frictions. The thesis these analysts advance is that handing over the territories to Morocco would suddenly eliminate these recurring crises, assuming Rabat’s absolute control over the border would simplify the management of flows of people to Europe. It is a cold pragmatism that prioritizes resolving the conflict through territorial concession.
THE SAHARA AS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
This pressure on Ceuta and Melilla cannot be understood without looking south to the sands of the Western Sahara. The historic shift Spain undertook in 2022, by backing the Moroccan autonomy plan, is interpreted in Washington not as the end of a crisis, but as the beginning of a new phase of Rabat’s diplomatic expansion. Neoconservative think tanks use this precedent to show that Madrid’s stance is malleable under the right pressure. If Spain accepted changing its decades-long policy toward the Sahara, they reason, it could also be forced to negotiate the status of its African outposts if the United States withdraws its explicit backing.
The shadow of the «Green March» looms again over the debate. Some analysts have even suggested that Morocco should emulate that civil mobilization of 1975 to enter Ceuta and Melilla. The theory circulating in certain Washington forums is that a massive entry of Moroccan civilians to raise the Moroccan flag would not constitute a formal military aggression, leaving Spain in a legally ambiguous position vis-à-vis NATO. Under this dangerous logic, Article 5 of the treaty would not be activated by a ‘civil invasion,’ leaving Madrid diplomatically isolated while Morocco consolidates faits accomplis on the ground.
TOWARD A NEW REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE
As the year 2026 advances, the concern in Spanish diplomatic circles is evident, though officially calm is maintained. The growing influence of Morocco in U.S. power centers has made Spanish sovereignty cease to be a taboo topic and become a bargaining chip within a broader geopolitical vision. For the hardline segments of the American republican movement, the future of the Western Mediterranean hinges on a Washington-Rabat axis that admits no fissures or territorial exceptions, even if this means undermining the interests of a historic partner like Spain.
This shift in focus reflects an uncomfortable reality: for a portion of the U.S. intellectual and political elite, Morocco is no longer merely a partner, but the central piece of its strategy in Africa. While Madrid insists on international legality and border integrity, in Washington realpolitik criteria prevail that see in the handover of Ceuta and Melilla the price necessary to secure an unbreakable alliance with the Moroccan kingdom. The debate has ceased to be a matter of historic rights to become a tussle for strategic relevance in the new world order.
SPANISH RESPONSE
The response from the Palacio de la Moncloa and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the start of 2026 has been unusually firm, aiming to root out what they describe as a «geostrategic disinformation campaign». The Government of Spain has launched a discreet but forceful diplomatic offensive in Washington to counter the narrative of neoconservative circles, reminding that sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla is not a matter of debate but an unquestionable constitutional and historical reality.
From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs it has been stressed that Ceuta and Melilla are the European Union’s southern border and NATO territory, regardless of the creative interpretations some analysts make of the North Atlantic Treaty. Spanish diplomacy has intensified its contacts with the State Department to ensure that the views of figures like Michael Rubin remain within the academic realm and do not permeate into the White House’s official policy. Spain maintains that any questioning of its territorial integrity is a «red line» that would gravely affect intelligence and defense cooperation with the United States.
