SIGONELLA: SOVEREIGNTY RETURN - Cristina Di Silvio - ETHICA SOCIETAS-Rivista di scienze umane e sociali

From the Iranian crisis to the Craxi precedent, Italy caught between alliance and strategic autonomy

Abstract: This article examines the geopolitical and legal implications of Italy’s decision not to authorize the United States to use the Sigonella base amid the latest escalation involving Washington, Israel, and Iran. Starting from the historical precedent of the 1985 Sigonella crisis, it interprets the episode as a clear expression of the structural tension between national sovereignty, alliance commitments, and decision-making autonomy in security policy. From this perspective, Italy’s refusal is not framed as a rupture within the Atlantic alliance, but as a reassertion of the principle that any involvement in a conflict, even indirect, must stem from an explicit political decision rather than from automatic alignment. The analysis also situates the Sigonella case within the broader framework of the wider Mediterranean, highlighting how growing regional instability is forcing European states to rethink the relationship between strategic cooperation, international legality, and geopolitical responsibility. What emerges is the outline of an Italian, and more broadly European, posture defined not by neutrality, but by the search for a balance between allied loyalty, the protection of national interests, and the containment of systemic risk.

Keywords: #Sigonella #Iran #UnitedStates #Israel #Italy #sovereignty #AtlanticAlliance #NATO #WiderMediterranean #geopolitics #internationalsecurity #internationallegality #decisionmakingautonomy #USBases #internationalcrisis #CristinaDiSilvio #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli

versione italiana

other contributions on Sigonella: SIGONELLA 1985: WHEN ITALY ASSERTED ITS SOVEREIGNTY

Iran at War, Europe on the Edge of Ambiguity

At the height of the latest escalation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, the international system is narrowing around a crucial question: how far are Europe’s allies prepared to follow Washington into a conflict that is becoming ever more opaque in legal terms and ever more dangerous in strategic ones? It is within this grey zone that Italy’s decision to deny the United States the use of the Sigonella base must be read — a choice which, beyond its technical and procedural dimension, carries major geopolitical significance. Sigonella is not merely a military base. It is a sensitive node in the American projection of power across the wider Mediterranean, an infrastructure through which intelligence, surveillance, and logistical support operations toward the Middle East are routed. Denying its use, at a moment of mounting tension with Tehran, means intervening directly in the operational chain of an allied power. It is not a neutral gesture, nor can it be reduced to a mere issue of authorization timing. Rather, it amounts to an implicit statement: Italy does not intend to be drawn into a conflict it did not help shape, either politically or legally.

Sigonella 2026: procedural sovereignty or strategic choice?

The formal issue — the authorization request arriving when the aircraft were already airborne — conceals a deeper question. The management of NATO bases on Italian territory is governed by a delicate balance between national sovereignty and alliance obligations. That balance is not automatic; it requires explicit political acts. Italy’s refusal reasserts precisely this principle: sovereignty is not suspended in the name of alliance, but negotiated case by case. In an international context marked by increasingly fluid alignments, such a reaffirmation carries even greater weight. The issue is not merely one of complying with procedure, but of determining who decides, when, and under what conditions a State enters, even indirectly, into a conflict.

The 1985 precedent: Bettino Craxi and Ronald Reagan

The historical reference to the 1985 Sigonella crisis is unavoidable. When Bettino Craxi resisted pressure from Ronald Reagan’s administration, the world was still structured by the rigid bipolarity of the Cold War. Yet it was precisely in that context that Italy succeeded in affirming a non-negotiable principle: jurisdiction over its own territory. The standoff between Italian and American forces on the Sigonella runway was not merely a diplomatic incident, but a concrete manifestation of sovereignty. Washington was compelled to acknowledge a limit. Today, that precedent re-emerges not simply as historical memory, but as an interpretive framework.

The wider Mediterranean, systemic risk, and Italy’s role

The present context is radically different. The international system is no longer governed by two superpowers, but traversed by a plurality of actors that makes every crisis potentially systemic. Within this framework, Iran represents a strategic node linking energy interests, trade routes, and global security dynamics. Any direct involvement would entail risks extending well beyond the military sphere: exposure to asymmetric retaliation, internal destabilization, and a loss of diplomatic credibility. The choice over Sigonella therefore reflects a growing awareness that preserving margins of autonomy may translate into a greater capacity for mediation.

Sovereignty and alliance: toward a new European posture

Italy’s decision does not amount to a rupture with the United States, but rather to a redefinition of the boundaries of cooperation. Between subordination and autonomy lies an intermediate space shaped by negotiation and limits. That is the space in which Italy now stands. Sigonella thus becomes a symbol once again. In 1985, the issue was the affirmation of a principle. In 2026, the task is to adapt that principle to a far more complex world. Defining that threshold means exercising, in full, the geopolitical responsibility of a State.