On Friday, March 27, the Italian government denied the United States authorization to use the Sigonella air base for a stopover by a bomber en route to the Middle East. According to available information, the request was submitted while the mission was already underway and concerned an aircraft not falling within the routine logistical activities covered by existing agreements between Rome and Washington.
Following internal checks, Defense Minister Guido Crosetto issued the denial. Palazzo Chigi later clarified that requests concerning the use of bases on Italian territory are assessed on a case-by-case basis, in full compliance with established procedures and existing international commitments.
Q: General, what exactly happened and how should Italy’s decision on Sigonella be interpreted?
A: Minister Crosetto denied the use of Sigonella because the requested assets were heading toward operational areas linked to ongoing conflict. As such, they did not fall within the perimeter normally covered by the automatic application of bilateral agreements.
- These were not logistical assets, and that is the key distinction. Sigonella is a NATO base for NATO purposes, while national uses are logistical in nature and not related to war theaters.
- This was not a “no” to the United States, but a refusal of an unauthorized use in a wartime context. For requests of this kind—precisely because they enter a new domain—it is appropriate that there be parliamentary oversight.
Q: Do you consider Italy’s position unusual or legitimate?
A: I consider it legitimate. The Italian Constitution, from both a general and geopolitical standpoint, was written in full respect of international and humanitarian law. Anything that falls outside that framework does not allow for exceptions.
- In this sense, the decision is a reaffirmation of sovereignty. Italy is avoiding direct involvement in the conflict with Iran while remaining allied with the United States. That is the key point: alliance is one thing, operational automatism is another.
Q: Could this decision create friction between Rome and Washington?
A: It may open a discussion, but within the normal limits of relations between allies. Every request must receive a response consistent with national laws. We cannot act otherwise. In fact, this response strengthens democratic legitimacy and, above all, political control over decisions related to war.
- It may weaken operational speed and, to some extent, a traditional notion of predictability for allies, but this is a structural trade-off. Sovereignty is not relinquished.
- We are entering a phase where we no longer speak only of shared sovereignty, but of connected sovereignty—your sovereignty connected to mine.
Q: In light of what happened, does Italy appear aligned with Spain’s position, or is this merely coincidental?
A: It is a bit of both. Every state must first respond to its own national interests. Spain responded firmly to the United States based on its own context, and Italy is doing the same according to its own. At the same time, there is a broader convergence: the European Union has also clearly stated that this war runs counter to international law.
- Italy is following its own path in line with NATO rules—this is not a NATO war, so those automatic mechanisms do not apply—and also in line with bilateral agreements, since this conflict falls outside that framework as well.
- Italy is not automatically aligning with Spain; it is responding to a specific request by stating that this type of request cannot be accepted.
- We are allies, but our legal framework must be respected.
Q: Do you see a parallel between the 1985 Sigonella crisis and what happened a few days ago?
A: There is a parallel, although the context is different. In 1985, the issue was physical control of the base; today, in 2026, it is about legal and political control over operational use. The underlying principle, however, remains the same. Today’s Sigonella case should not be seen as an isolated incident, but as a symptom of a broader transition.
- We have moved from a model of delegated security to one of connected sovereignty. This is no longer the Sigonella of the past; we are in a new world, where our sovereignty must be connected to that of others.
- Still, it remains a choice that Parliament can make, if it chooses to do so, always within the framework of the Constitution. In this sense, the defense minister upheld the country, the Constitution, and national sovereignty without undermining the alliance—simply clarifying that this case falls outside the rules and therefore cannot be authorized.
