At the same time, he stressed that this is also a question of “strategy” with the United States. “We are talking about a relationship with an ally that is strategic for us and that will always be so. Portugal has always needed an Atlantic ally, not today. It’s something that comes from the 14th century. People, sometimes, are not even aware that we are talking about very permanent strategic interests”, stated Rangel.
Asked about Spain’s position, the minister completely rejected the comparison. “The Portuguese position, regarding its ally the United States, has always been different from the Spanish position. This is historic. You know that Spain only joined NATO in 1982. Therefore, we have a different position, which is normal, because our independence has always been guaranteed by an Atlantic partner,” he said.
Portugal as a target?
Paulo Rangel did not respond directly when asked whether Iran might see Portugal as a target. “The Portuguese Government recognizes that there is a threat, but anyone recognizes that there is (…) that there is a threat from Iran, which is a very serious threat. See, Iran was one of Russia’s biggest supporters in the war in Ukraine”, he highlighted.
The minister mentioned that the Iranian regime has already attacked countries with “functional” relations and that the threat cannot be underestimated. However, regarding Portugal’s position, he highlighted that it is “of great balance, which has a very clear foreign policy doctrine”.
The future
As for the “future” of the use of the base, the Government gave a “conditional authorization”, with conditions. He stressed that the conditions are as follows: “The first is that [só pode ser] in response and therefore only in retaliation or defense.”these.
The second is related to need. “It must be necessary. This must comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality”he stated. The third is that they are “only for targets of a military nature”.
Asked whether the Government understands that Portugal has met these conditions, Rangel avoided a direct answer. “That’s not the point. This is now for the future, not for what has already passed.”
amanda.lima@dn.pt

Leave a Reply