TEHRAN- Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has warned that the war against Iran has cost Europeans more than €100 billion ($112 billion), arguing that ordinary citizens are paying the price for a conflict they opposed.

In a post on X on Friday, Sánchez said those who had spoken out against the war had been right to warn of its consequences.

“Those of us who raised our voices against the war were right when we said NO to war,” he wrote. “We knew ordinary people would end up paying the bill.”

“Now, it's time to put an end to this disaster,” Sánchez said.

His remarks underscore mounting concerns in Europe over the economic fallout of the war, particularly its effects on energy costs, household budgets and business competitiveness.

European citizens face the economic fallout

The €100 billion figure cited by Sánchez highlights the scale of the economic burden that the conflict has placed on Europe. Higher energy costs can feed through to transport, manufacturing, food prices and household expenditure, placing additional pressure on governments already grappling with economic challenges.

The economic repercussions raise a broader question for European governments: how can they protect their populations from the consequences of a conflict while addressing the extent to which their own military infrastructure has supported US operations?

British base used by US bombers in strikes on Iran

The debate has gained a further dimension following reports by major Western media outlets that US long-range bombers operating from RAF Fairford in England were used in strikes against Iran.

The Washington Post reported on October 6 that the Pentagon abruptly moved approximately a dozen B-1 bombers out of the British base amid concerns about a possible attack on the aircraft and personnel. The newspaper noted that the aircraft had recently been used in bombing missions against Iran.

Reuters also reported on October 5 that US President Donald Trump had linked the bombers' withdrawal to a security threat. The aircraft were subsequently returned to their home bases in the United States.

The episode highlights the strategic importance of European military facilities to Washington's ability to deploy and sustain long-range air operations. It also brings into focus the role of host countries in determining whether their territory and infrastructure can be used in military action against another state.

Britain had authorized the United States to use RAF Fairford for what its government described as specific and limited defensive strikes against Iranian missile sites, according to reporting by The Washington Post. Iran's Foreign Ministry condemned the decision.

The distinction between the stated scope of the authorization and the broader military consequences of providing a launch platform for attacks on Iran is central to the debate over European responsibility.

A divide between opposition to war and military cooperation

Sánchez's remarks reflect the position of a European leader who has publicly opposed the war and emphasized its cost to ordinary people. The use of British territory for US bombing operations, meanwhile, illustrates that European responses to the conflict have not been uniform.

This distinction matters because opposition to a war's economic consequences is not the same as withholding military assistance that could facilitate it. Where governments permit foreign forces to use their territory for attacks, their decisions become part of the wider strategic context of the conflict.

For Iran, the issue also raises questions about the obligations of states not to allow their territory to be used in ways that facilitate unlawful uses of force. 

The financial consequences identified by Sánchez and the military role of facilities such as RAF Fairford therefore point to two interconnected dimensions of the war: the costs borne by European societies and the contribution that some European infrastructure has made to US operations.

As European households and businesses contend with the economic fallout, Sánchez's call to end the conflict places renewed emphasis on the need for a political settlement that prevents further destruction and limits the war's wider regional and international consequences.