More than a decade after the Madrid bombings of 2004, Spain continues to grapple with a painful truth. The wound is not simply open; it festers, shaping national memory and political discourse. The straightforward account is that Islamist extremists connected to Al Qaeda planted explosive devices on a commuter train, apparently in retaliation for Spain’s participation in the Iraq War. That decision, supported by then-prime minister Jose Maria Aznar despite heavy public opposition, set the stage for a controversy that has never fully faded. From the outset, there were indications pointing away from ETA, yet the government, wary of political repercussions if Islamist responsibility were established, clung to the ETA narrative. This stance persisted long after the initial shock, coloring debates for years to come. When Jose Luis Zapatero assumed the premiership in the wake of the 14-M elections, some media revived Aznar-era theories, while opposition voices fueled a climate of unease by arguing that Zapatero betrayed the victims in Euskadi. The socialist leader, for his part, pursued a steady course that sought dignity for the state and rejected concessions to terrorism.
Over time, it became clear that FAES, the foundation associated with Aznar, reentered political life around the 14-M anniversary with a statement asserting that the government back then spoke truth when imputing the attacks to ETA. FAES maintained that the People’s Party did not lie. Proponents of a so-called great deception sometimes cast journalists as the main architects of the misbelief, casting a shadow over the social memory of the event. It is also recalled that, months before the bombings, Spain’s National Intelligence Center issued warnings about a rising Islamist threat and even identified a key suspect, Arlek Lamari, one of the jihadists who died in Leganés on April 3, 2004. Reports after the fact highlighted that on March 16, 2004, five days after the massacre, the CNI, under Jorge Dezcallar, attributed responsibility to Lamari and urged swift action. There are accounts, including remarks attributed to a high-level American official, suggesting that intelligence circles believed the violence had Islamist origins rather than ETA involvement. A subsequent court ruling eventually clarified the official understanding of the event within the legal framework of Spain’s judiciary.
Within the People’s Party, some factions confronted the grim reality with a more nuanced view. A recent broadcast on Radio Nacional de España, hosted by José María Lassalle, an ally of Rajoy in those fraught days, suggested the party saw itself as a victim of Aznar’s arrogance. Lassalle contended that the party never celebrated the conspiracy theories propagated by certain media voices, even as some headlines pushed troubling narratives to the extreme. This new articulation may help explain why the political rift between the PP and PSOE remains unsettled. Neither the Rajoy government nor the Feijóo leadership has fully distanced itself from Aznar or from the journalists who stood beside him during those years.
The lingering aura of the old falsehood continues to complicate the political climate between the PP and PSOE, a climate that predated the fateful year 2004. The stubborn insistence on a widely debunked interpretation has had lasting consequences for Spain’s political stability. Yet, there have been moments of cautious political balance, even as nearby Portugal demonstrates how fragile such equilibrium can be when the two major parties fail to rebuild pragmatic, cooperative relations. The memory of the Madrid attacks still colors debates, influences electoral calculations, and shapes how parties communicate with voters about national security, accountability, and the boundaries between political loyalty and the pursuit of truth. In the years since, analysts have urged a more careful handling of intelligence, a clearer separation between journalism and political spin, and a commitment to a public conversation grounded in documented facts rather than factional narratives. The experience serves as a reminder that national unity in the face of terror depends not only on strong institutions but also on a shared agreement to confront uncomfortable truths with evidence and restraint, even when the path forward is politically painful.