Aviano hosts the 31° Fighter Wing (F-16 jets) and B61-4 nuclear weapons, while Sigonella has Mq-9 Reaper drones and Ep-3 surveillance airplanes.
For context, the other main US bases in Italy are: Ghedi (Lombardia region), Camp Darby (Tuscany region), Camp Ederle (Veneto region), the two harbors of Naples and Gaeta, and some other communications infrastructures. By the way, Camp Darby is the largest US weapons and ammunition warehouse in Europe.
> Someone is trying to get the message across that Italy has decided to suspend the use of bases for U.S. assets.
> Something that's simply false, because the bases are active, in use, and nothing has changed.
> The Government continues to do what all Italian Governments have always done in full adherence to the commitments made in Parliament and to the line reiterated in the Supreme Defense Council as well, in continuity with all previous Councils over the decades.
> International agreements clearly regulate and distinguish what requires specific Government authorization (for which it has been decided to always involve Parliament), without which it is not possible to grant anything, and what is instead considered technically authorized because it is included in the agreements.
> A minister only has to ensure they are respected.
> There is no third option.
> Finally, I want to reiterate that there is no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules that have governed their presence in Italy since 1954 just as well as we do.
This may be permitted under the agreements.
I can't find the Italian version, but Spain's agreement (https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/) differentiates between aircraft already based in Spain versus ones transiting through.
> Aircraft of the United States forces which are deployed in Spain, permanently or on rotation, within the agreed force level, may overfly, enter and exit Spanish air space, and use the bases specified in Annex 2 of this Agreement, with no other requirement than compliance with Spanish air traffic regulations. In order to use other bases, military airdromes and airports, the corresponding authorization shall be requested through the Permanent Committee at least 48 hours in advance.
> Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee.
We'll see what Italy does if asked next time.
I'm still livid about the Cavalese disaster in which I lost few distant friends (close friends of my Veneto uncle's):
In a twist of fate, the person partially responsible for the 1976 disaster was named Schweizer. The one partially responsible in 1998 was Schweitzer.
So if we are hoping whatever nationality/occupation pair is gone that is responsible for Cavalese car crashes, you'll be hoping to eject more than just Americans (it is not clear to me whether Schweizer was Italian as the last name seems more Germanic and apparently they were a seasonal worker). Maybe instead it is more specific to eject anyone with the name Schweit?zer ...
This may have been an attempt at rage-bait, but putting woke and bureaucracy next to each other makes it actually hilarious.
Is it normal for the Americans to behave this way or is this new procedure?
To put simply: the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.
If we get to a point where Americans by and large do not believe they have any power over their democracy, and that they're helpless victims of an oppressive government, I think my perspective would change in the same way I don't think Iranians are to be expected to deal with their government.
I should be clear because this is a very pointed perspective: I don't dislike Americans. As a Canadian it's inevitable that I am close friends with countless Americans. There's a number of them in my very close family. But I believe they bear responsibility for their government because I believe the U.S. is, for now, still a democracy.
And I’ll vote for the people that prevent and/or limit the damage you wish to cause to the current administration and its supporters. Especially if it means using privacy laws to prevent doxxing of such individuals or any adverse action against them.
> their flight plan was not communicated in advance to the Italian air force general staff, nor had the American aircraft received authorization to land,
Sounds like they might have gotten authorization if they had just told them in advance.
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-bars-us-overflights...
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/31/f...
But you have to also look at the reality of the situation. Iran was selling drones and weapons to Russia to help it prosecute its unjust war in Ukraine. They were loading up on missiles and missile launchers and regardless of the Obama nuclear deal was intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon. Where does that leave the world strategically?
Well, if you have an Iran that, never mind the nuclear aspect, has thousands and thousands of missiles and can rain hell upon its Gulf neighbors and decide to "manage" the Straight of Hormuz whenever it wants - you are not in a really bad spot. We saw what happened with North Korea. I don't think we want another one in the Middle East. And if Iran continues or continued to build up weapons, the Arab states are obviously going to load up and they're going to buy/build nuclear weapons themselves. This is untenable.
There seems to be this misunderstanding that Iran is just this country who happens to want to wipe the United States and Israel off the face of the earth (regardless of who did what and when) and if only somehow the United States withdrew from the Middle East (I wonder why they want that? hint hint) and "stopped supporting Israel" that Iran would let ships happily just pass through this straight and all would be just fine. The truth of the matter is that Iran was seized by religious fanatics and the world giving in to that fanaticism just emboldens it, it doesn't placate it. Just like with Russia - if you give in to Putin he just asks for more.
Yet again the United States faces a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Launch airstrikes and stop Iran from doing what it is doing. Bad bad bad. Leave Iran alone, withdraw from the Middle East - now you're isolationist and you withdrew from the world and allowed Iran to "kick you out". Gulf states become vassals or nuclear armed in response. It's not great.
A lot of folks are talking about the United States and how it is withdrawing from the world and such. Well, here's an example right in front of you. If the US had pulled out as Iran demanded and said "not our problem" you'd now have an Iran full-on supporting Russia, providing missiles, drones, and more, control over 20% of the world's oil supply where they can exact tolls, turn Gulf States into vassals (for those who can't get a nuke), and would continue to directly pay, arm, and supply groups throughout the Middle East and elsewhere to destabilize other countries and kill people including in Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, and more.
You're describing the current situation. The tolls are new, as a response to the war! They've been supplying Russia with drones for years! They've been funding groups throughout the Middle East for decades!
You're assuming that you know their strategy, and you don't. They very well may have been planning to do so in the next 5 or so years. Even if they didn't plan on that, they were building up their missile production and accumulation to an extent where the damage we've seen today is pedestrian in comparison. They could at a whim, just say "give us X or we close the straight".
> They've been supplying Russia with drones for years! They've been funding groups throughout the Middle East for decades!
Yea, and we've basically done nothing about it because we've been trying to avoid confrontation... but maybe Iran shouldn't be doing these things. Just a thought.
Our accelerating that doesn't seem like a big win so far.
> They could at a whim, just say "give us X or we close the straight".
They've been able to do that for decades.
> but maybe Iran shouldn't be doing these things
Few disagree.
But you're falling for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism.
Maybe this can help.
It's 2025 and Iran has 1,000 missiles (just random rough numbers).
It's 2030, and Iran now has 5,000 missiles and bought a bunch of hypersonic missiles from China.
Sure, we can just "not accelerate" this, but then we're not going to do anything about it in 2030 because nobody is going to accept being on the receiving end of so much destruction.
> They've been able to do that for decades.
Not quite - they've had varying levels of capability here. Until recently they haven't had the missile and drone stockpile that they have today and have been building.
It's been 3 weeks... we're going to stop the enrichment. We can stop the drone supply by blowing up the factories.
> I mean, they are controlling Hormuz Strait now - they were not before the war. In addition they are now free to sell their own oil, because the sanctions have been lifted.
They were de facto "controlling" the straight anyway because of their missile stockpile, they just hadn't yet exercised their leverage. They're free to sell their oil to the extent the US allows them to based on whatever decisions are being made. Obviously we can just blockade the straight too, even more effectively than Iran has been.
(an aside but I can’t help feeling like describing being anti-war as “virtue signalling” really highlights what a useless term it is. Of course it’s signalling virtue! It’s a good thing!)
I don't think very many leaders think like that. Iran can be bought off with diplomatic ties and thawing of relationships. This is either a decision that will play well to home, or a "fuck off donnie" for bad mouthing them.
Iran's missile attack on Diego Garcia (unexpectedly long range, more than we thought they had functional) puts Rome in missile range.
They're definitely thinking about that right now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/iran-tests-lon...
I know that hegseth has obliterated the planning and intelligence capability of the us military, but the news has less excuse.
No; there are plenty of short and intermediate range ballistic missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile has a public max range of ~300 miles, for example. Not every BM is an ICBM.
Your link cites a max of 1,200 miles and says "hitting Israel and US bases in the region". Diego Garcia almost doubles that number, which places London in range when it previously wasn't.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/politics/iran-missiles-diego-...
> While the attack was unsuccessful, it shows that Iran may not be adhering its self-imposed missile range limit of 2,000 kilometers, raising concerns about whether Tehran could hit US and European interests farther away than previously thought.
Or do they just not care because Poland and Germany are east of them?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d415g55nno
I think Europe just wants to be left out of it.
[0] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260326-iran-says-oil-exp...
Agreed, but
> but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe
I don't think this is a sure thing at all.
The fact is that the US and Israel kicked a hornets nest that everyone is stuck in the room with, and everyone else in that room is understandably upset. And (to belabor the metaphor) the only ones who those hornets were eyeing had themselves been causing trouble for the past 80 years.
This is a silly claim; they're still sending missiles and drones all over the area, and the strait is functionally closed.
We spent twenty years trying to tame Afghanistan and it went right back to the Taliban within days of withdrawal from the area. Iran has a lot more capacity to bounce back than they did.
As for deterrent, Iran will probably stop being a significant threat to Israel. But cheap drones have changed the situation closer to Iran. The military power required to close the Strait and hobble the economies of the Gulf states is orders of magnitude smaller than the military power needed to stop it.
Also currently Iran is looking stronger not weaker tbh. The Americans have really fucked it all up.
When you say Iran is looking stronger I think you mean in some kind of relative expectation game in the media sense rather than a real hard power sense.. I would encourage you to look at the latter instead
What is a complete strategic failure though is EU's support for Israel's impunity that created this war, which will negatively effect all of the EU. There should have been severe sanctions and travel bans on all Israelis long time ago, to force their government to act better. Economic losses this shithole country caused to the EU, will not be offset by any benefits Israel's<->EU trade could create for a looooong time.
If you think this war is somehow negatively impacting the EU you're being very short sighted. Do you realize the level of impunity the IRGC has traditionally operated with in europe? Only the mass murderer of the Iranian civilians in January initiated a slow wake up call for europe. Still only a service level wake up call unfortunately