In a Mediterranean region marked by instability and emerging hybrid threats, the transfer of NATO’s Naples command to Italian leadership carries strong political and strategic weight. For Rome, it signals both opportunity and responsibility at a moment when Europe is being called to shoulder a greater share of the Alliance’s burden.
Why he matters: Lorenzo Cesa is President of the Italian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, placing him at the crossroads between national political oversight and transatlantic strategic debate. His views reflect both Italy’s institutional posture within NATO and the evolving European conversation about burden-sharing and security in the Mediterranean and Africa.
Q: Honourable Cesa, the transfer of the NATO Naples command under Italian leadership is being read as a sign of greater European responsibility. What political and strategic value does this step hold for Italy and for its role within the Alliance?
A: It is a significant step because it transforms a “geographical centrality” into concrete influence. Leading a command on the southern flank allows Italy to shape priorities, exercises, contingency plans, and readiness levels in the broader Mediterranean: a space where instability from the Sahel and the Middle East intersects with great-power competition, hybrid threats, and the protection of vital lines.
- Politically, it signals that Europe wants to count more by assuming measurable responsibilities, and to regional actors that Rome is a credible interlocutor not only diplomatically but also operationally.
- For Italy, it means greater capacity to steer planning and to “hold the line” on the south in NATO debates over resources and posture, reducing the risk that the southern flank remains an intermittent priority.
Q: This redistribution of commands has been interpreted by some as a step toward greater European defence autonomy, and by others as an initial sign of American disengagement. Which reading do you consider more accurate, and what implications do you see for Italy?
A: The more solid interpretation is European responsibility within NATO, rather than a structural American disengagement. The transfer of leadership over certain commands responds to Washington’s political request for a fairer sharing of responsibilities, but it takes place without dismantling the Alliance’s integrated architecture.
- Transatlantic continuity is not in question. That said, the signal is clear: Europe must be able to “hold the line” even if U.S. politics becomes more unpredictable. For Italy, the implication is twofold: invest to avoid dependence on a few key assets, and use the new role to build European coalitions capable of advancing a common southern priority within NATO.
- At the same time, Italy must deploy diplomacy and operational results that make it worthwhile for the U.S. to remain fully engaged in the Mediterranean theatre.
Q: With command of NATO’s southern flank, Italy finally holds a key role in the Mediterranean, alongside the vision for Africa outlined by the Mattei Plan. For many years, Italy has aspired to a more operational role on NATO’s southern flank. What scenarios are opening up?
A: A command role enables rapid response options to simultaneous crises: terrorism and criminal networks, trafficking, sabotage of critical infrastructure, instrumentalised migration pressure, state crises, and great-power competition over energy routes. At the same time, cooperation with regional partners can be strengthened to reduce “grey zones” where hostile actors thrive.
- This can complement the Mattei Plan: security and development must be coordinated, because stabilisation, investment, and crisis management are interconnected.
- The key is to avoid overlap and instead create synergies with European Union initiatives. Scenarios are opening in which Italy can move from being a “frontline country” to becoming a security orchestrator in the broader Mediterranean.
Q: Assuming a command role also entails greater operational, political, and financial responsibilities. In your view, is Italy ready to sustain this qualitative leap in terms of investment, military capabilities, and international credibility?
A: Yes, Italy can be ready, but this qualitative leap must be supported by political continuity and coherent choices. To lead means to have forces that are ready and sustainable. It is not enough to “allocate funds”; availability must increase, and investments must focus on what truly matters.
- Financially, the key is multi-year planning and better spending: common standards, joint European procurement, less industrial fragmentation, and greater interoperability.
- International credibility grows when commitments are predictable and verifiable. A more stable domestic consensus is also needed, with clear objectives and a long-term political vision linking security, the economy, and the protection of welfare.
Q: The Munich Security Conference opens on Friday. What expectations do you have for Italy’s and NATO’s role there, and which key issues do you hope will emerge regarding the reorganisation of commands and Euro-Atlantic security?
A: At the Munich Security Conference, I expect the reorganisation of commands to be treated as a test case—not a symbolic rotation, but measurable European capacity and responsibility.
- For Italy, it is an opportunity to present itself as the pivot of the southern flank and as a “connector” between deterrence, crisis management, and partnerships in the Mediterranean and Africa.
- I also expect a focus on hybrid threats (sabotage, disinformation, cyber), the protection of critical infrastructure, and EU-NATO coordination, with concrete implications for the defence industry and decision-making speed.
The bottom line: Italy’s leadership of NATO’s Naples command marks more than a routine rotation.
- It positions Rome at the centre of the Alliance’s southern strategy at a time when the Mediterranean, Africa, and hybrid threats are climbing the transatlantic agenda.
- The challenge now is turning institutional prominence into sustained capability, credible investment, and strategic coherence — ensuring that the southern flank becomes a structural priority rather than a temporary one.
