Sigonella, Italy’s refusal is “a message to Washington.”
Italy’s denial of the American operational request to use the Sigonella military base in Sicily is fueling public debate, behind-the-scenes, journalistic reconstructions, and official denials.
Was it a purely technical choice, related to the failure to comply with the procedures set out in the agreements, or a precise political signal from the Italian government?
Startmag discussed this with General Vincenzo Camporini, former Chief of Defense Staff and Air Force Chief of Staff.
General, did you expect Italy’s refusal in this case?
“It is provided for by the rules, it is provided for by the agreements, so there is no surprise in this regard. The only one who seems surprised is Trump, but the agreements signed and renewed over time state that Sigonella – an Italian base used by the Atlantic Alliance – currently hosts American units, which can operate within the framework of NATO operations. Operations outside this framework must be authorized on a case-by-case basis. With due advance notice, obviously, the request must arrive and when politically appropriate, authorization is granted, as happened in 2020, if I recall correctly, for an operation within the framework of the fight against terrorism.”
In your opinion, then, this is a purely technical denial, related to the failure to respect treaties and agreements, and not a political choice.
“It is linked to respect for the agreements, which also constitutes a political choice, in the sense that the Italian government could have given its consent, precisely with a request submitted in due time, but decided not to do so. So it was a political decision, made by our government, by Minister Crosetto, by the Prime Minister, therefore absolutely in line with the behavior between sovereign countries.”
But do decisions of this kind always have to be officially communicated or can they remain undisclosed/unconfirmed?
“These are not pieces of information that are normally made public. There are communication channels at the diplomatic and military level that are used as for many other matters. The fact that in this case it was made public therefore represents an additional element.”
Corriere della Sera wrote: “There is also a version with different nuances: that the government turned a blind eye for too many days, until it was decided, at the table, not to do so anymore. In some circles, including diplomatic ones, this is a credible hypothesis.” But this morning Minister Crosetto strongly denied it via X.
“Here someone makes hypotheses, throws out ideas without having the slightest evidence of reality. I was quite surprised by this insinuation from Corriere della Sera. On what basis is it made? Just to stir the waters? Crosetto did very well to say it’s not true. This is what is objectively written in history. Then one can imagine whatever one wants.”
Also according to what the press has reconstructed about the Sigonella base case, a possible contradiction emerges. On one hand it is claimed that the United States had not requested any prior authorization, on the other hand there is talk of a request then rejected by the minister. How do you explain this discrepancy?
“What I read is that a request was made while the aircraft were already in the air, therefore without even the minimum reasonable time to examine it politically. So it was a request that was dead on arrival. I don’t know other scenarios, I have no evidence.”
General, if the request, as it seems, arrived when the aircraft were already flying, could it be interpreted as pressure on our country?
“Perhaps not as pressure, but as taking for granted that there would be consent, which turned out not to be true.”
In conclusion, then, should this denial by Italy be read as a mandatory technical step or as a precise political signal to the allies?
“Both things: on one hand there are rules and procedures that were not respected; on the other hand there is also a political aspect, that is the desire to clearly and explicitly signal to the United States that we do not intend to be involved in a conflict wanted exclusively by Trump and the White House.”
