Introduction
On December 20, 1973, at 9:25 in the morning, an official Dodge Dart drove through Claudio Coello street in Madrid’s Salamanca district. As it passed number 104, an explosion launched it into the air. The car flew over a five-story church and crashed into the building’s interior courtyard. Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco, Prime Minister and Franco’s right-hand man, died instantly.
The attack — claimed by ETA — was one of the most spectacular operations in Spain’s history. But beyond the terrorist action, Carrero Blanco’s death was one of the most momentous geopolitical events of 20th-century Spain. With him died the last chance for Francoism to survive Franco. His death opened the doors to the Transition and, with it, to the Spain we know today.
However, decades later, questions remain: was it really just ETA? What were American-made anti-tank mines doing in the attack? Did the CIA have a role? Did the United States benefit from the death of the man who guaranteed the regime’s continuity?
This article, the sixth in the «Spain: Laboratory of Control» sub-series, reconstructs the assassination of Carrero Blanco and analyzes its geopolitical implications.
Who Was Luis Carrero Blanco?
Luis Carrero Blanco (1904-1973) was a military officer and politician, a key figure of the Franco regime for over thirty years. A navy man, he was absolutely loyal to Franco and firmly committed to his political convictions.
Carrero was neither a charismatic politician nor a brilliant speaker. He was a desk man: meticulous, tireless, and profoundly anti-communist. Franco trusted him blindly. Carrero was, in Franco’s own words, “my right arm” and “the person who has always understood me best.”
In 1967, Franco created the position of Vice President of the Government and assigned it to Carrero. In 1973, in a gesture that clearly marked his succession plan, Franco appointed him Prime Minister. Carrero was, without any doubt, Franco’s heir.
His role was to guarantee the continuity of Francoism after the dictator’s death. Carrero represented the hard line: political immobility, fierce anti-communism, and preservation of the regime’s structures. As long as he was in charge, there would be no Transition.
The Attack: December 20, 1973
ETA’s plan to kill Carrero Blanco — known as «Operation Ogre» — was meticulously prepared over months.
The ETA commando had rented a basement on Claudio Coello street, in the same building where Carrero lived. For months, they dug a tunnel from the basement to the center of the street, where they placed an explosive charge of military proportions.
The explosion was of unusual violence. The anti-tank mines — stolen from a military depot — launched Carrero’s official car to an estimated height of 30 meters, over the five-story San Francisco de Borja church. The vehicle crashed into the building’s interior courtyard. Carrero Blanco and his bodyguards died instantly.
The spectacular nature of the attack — more like a military operation than a conventional terrorist action — marked a before and after in Spain’s history.
The CIA Theory
From the very day of the attack, suspicions arose about the involvement of foreign intelligence services. The most persistent theory points to the CIA.
The arguments for this hypothesis are:
-
The M-18 anti-tank mines: The explosive used were American-made anti-tank mines. Although ETA had stolen them from a military depot, the use of this type of explosive indicated a level of sophistication and power unusual for an ETA action at that time. M-18 mines were designed to destroy armored vehicles; their use against a passenger car was disproportionate, suggesting those who placed them wanted to ensure no survivors.
-
The intelligence required: Planning an attack of this complexity — digging a tunnel in central Madrid without detection, knowing Carrero’s exact movements, placing the mines at the precise point — required high-quality intelligence. The hypothesis suggests the CIA may have provided that intelligence or facilitated the operation.
-
The strategic interest: Carrero Blanco was an obstacle to US plans in Spain. His death directly benefited American interests: it eliminated the guarantor of pure Francoist continuity and opened the door to a controlled Transition that, with Juan Carlos at the helm, would maintain the military bases and align Spain with NATO.
-
The international precedent: The CIA had a history of involvement in covert operations against leaders it considered obstacles to its interests, especially in Southern Europe and Latin America.
This theory has not been proven judicially. The official CIA documentation on Spain from those years remains classified, fueling suspicions.
The Consequences: The Transition That Would Not Have Been
Carrero Blanco’s death radically changed the Spanish political landscape. Franco, already very old and deteriorated, lost his political successor. Without Carrero, the regime was decapitated:
- The regime’s succession line was broken: Carrero was meant to continue Francoism without Franco. His death eliminated that continuity.
- Aperturismo accelerated: The new Prime Minister, Carlos Arias Navarro, promised an «aperturismo» (opening) that never fully materialized.
- Juan Carlos became the only option: With Carrero dead and no consensus candidate within the regime, Juan Carlos de Borbón, designated king in 1969 but without real political power, became the key piece of the future.
- The Transition became inevitable: Without Carrero, the Transition was not an option: it was the only possible way out.
If Carrero Blanco had not been assassinated, Spain’s history would have been very different. A Carrero government after Franco’s death would have prolonged Francoism — perhaps for years — with minimal reforms and selective repression. The peaceful, negotiated Transition we know would probably not have occurred.
Connection with the Geopolitics of Control Series
The assassination of Carrero Blanco is a case of control through selective elimination. Several of Pedro Baños’ levers align:
- 🏛️ Military lever: The operation combined terrorist capability (ETA) with military technology (M-18 anti-tank mines) and possible foreign intelligence (CIA).
- 👥 Diplomatic lever: Carrero’s death directly benefited US foreign policy, which gained a more docile ally in Juan Carlos.
- 📺 Media lever: ETA claimed responsibility, but the public narrative focused on condemning terrorism, avoiding questions about the geopolitical interests that benefited from Carrero’s death.
It also connects with Bertrand de Jouvenel: power expands by nature, and when one power weakens — in this case, the Franco regime — other powers (the United States, aperturista sectors, the monarchy) occupy the vacant space.
This article is closely linked with the previous sub-series article on Franco and Kissinger, where we analyzed how the United States managed the Transition. Carrero’s death was the indispensable requirement for that controlled Transition to be possible.
To go deeper:
– Franco and Kissinger — How the US Managed the Spanish Transition
– The Reparto of Power After Franco’s Death (coming soon)
– Spain’s Nuclear Plan
FAQ
Who killed Carrero Blanco?
ETA claimed responsibility as part of their struggle against the Franco regime. However, theories point to the involvement of foreign intelligence services, especially the US CIA, who may have provided intelligence and logistical support.
Why were anti-tank mines used in the attack?
American-made M-18 anti-tank mines were the explosive used. Their power was disproportionate for a light vehicle, suggesting those responsible wanted to guarantee Carrero’s death with no chance of survival. This detail is one of the arguments for the CIA involvement theory.
How did Carrero Blanco’s death change Spain’s history?
Carrero was Franco’s heir and the guarantor of regime continuity. His death decapitated Francoism, eliminated the option of authoritarian continuity, and opened the doors to the Transition. Without his assassination, the peaceful, controlled Transition we know would probably not have occurred.
Did the CIA have an interest in killing Carrero Blanco?
The United States had a strategic interest in a controlled Transition favorable to its interests. Carrero Blanco represented the continuity of pure Francoism, which made an orderly Transition difficult. His death directly benefited American interests, although there is no conclusive evidence of direct CIA involvement.
What happened to those responsible for the attack?
The ETA commando members who carried out the attack fled Spain and lived in exile for years. With the arrival of democracy, some were tried and others benefited from clemency measures. The possible international connections of the attack were never thoroughly investigated.
Conclusion
The assassination of Carrero Blanco was the turning point that changed Spain’s history. With him died not only a man, but the possibility that Francoism would survive Franco. His death opened the doors to the Transition and, with it, to democratic Spain, aligned with the West and with American military bases intact.
Decades later, questions about the intellectual authorship of the attack remain unanswered. The CIA, the M-18 anti-tank mines, the intelligence required for such a precise operation… loose ends point in directions that have never been fully investigated.
What is clear is that Carrero Blanco’s death benefited many actors — inside and outside Spain — and harmed very few. On the geopolitical chessboard, that is often the most revealing clue.
This is the sixth article of the «Spain: Laboratory of Control» sub-series.
📚 Related Books
- Operation Ogre: How and Why We Executed Carrero Blanco — Eva Forest (Spanish)
- Carrero Blanco: The Last Dolphin of Francoism — Javier Tusell (Spanish)
- The Power (Le Pouvoir) — Bertrand de Jouvenel
- El dominio mundial (Global Domination) — Pedro Baños
- Kissinger and Spain — Charles Powell
Featured image: Flag of Spain. Source: Wikimedia Commons, public domain.
