Italy didn't join Spain in this: it's just that using the Sigonella airbase for military purpose requires parliament approval, which was not scheduled on time. Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.<p>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.<p>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.
> Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.<p>This may be permitted under the agreements.<p>I can't find the Italian version, but Spain's agreement (<a href="https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/" rel="nofollow">https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/</a>) differentiates between aircraft <i>already based</i> in Spain versus ones transiting through.<p>> Aircraft of the United States forces <i>which are deployed in Spain, permanently or on rotation</i>, 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.<p>> Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, <i>not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain</i> 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.<p>We'll see what Italy does if asked next time.
I really hope someday no US troops will be stationed in Italy.<p>I'm still livid about the Cavalese disaster in which I lost few distant friends (close friends of my Veneto uncle's):<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash</a>
Interestingly I did a double take when looking this up as there is also an even worse "1976 Cavalese cable car crash" in the same vicinity 22 years earlier, this time the fault of a car operator and a design weakness.<p>In a twist of fate, the person partially responsible for the 1976 disaster was named <i>Schweizer</i>. The one partially responsible in 1998 was <i>Schweitzer</i>.<p>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 ...
Parliament approval, agreements, treaties. Sounds like european woke bureaucratic bullshit. Get the CEO of Italy on the phone, he'll get it done. If not, throw some more tariffs at them.
Sad time today when it's not even clear how serious/sarcastic this comment is.
The “CEO” of Italy is a she.
Like pretty much every other word in that comment, we'll never know if the misgendering is intentional satire or not.
Not sure if the CEO of the USA knows that, he confused Spain with Brazil.
> european woke bureaucratic bullshit<p>This may have been an attempt at rage-bait, but putting woke and bureaucracy next to each other makes it actually hilarious.
I don't know if this is a troll. But anti-woke is not slavishly following the US. Anti woke would be: "Take your troops that currently fail in the Middle East out of the EU and don't bother us with your NATO withdrawal threats. You can't even protect the Gulf region."
I can't tell if this is satire or a shocking indictment of the US education system
That is a misleading headline. Italy refused landing to flights outside normal operations without a prior request. We don't know how the Italian government would respond to a request if the US took the time to make one.
> As these were not logistical flights, they were not covered by the bilateral treaty governing U.S. military bases in Italy which allow for logistical and technical use; that led Defense Minister Guido Crosetto to deny the planes the use of the Sigonella base since permission in this case would need approval from the Italian parliament.
And:<p>> their flight plan was not communicated in advance to the Italian air force general staff, nor had the American aircraft received authorization to land,<p>Sounds like they might have gotten authorization if they had just told them in advance.
What is a logistical flight?
(Joining Spain and France.)
It is a war, military operation, or an aggression?
More intentionally misleading propaganda. Just like France's supposed ban of its airspace to US aircrafts claimed by Trump which is, needless to say, wrong. Think about what countries benefit from spreading this misinformation through media channels.<p><a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/31/france-has-not-banned-all-military-overflights-to-israel-and-the-middle-east_6751992_4.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/31/f...</a>
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Are you sure it’s not just a government responding to its population? This war is deeply unpopular just about everywhere, it makes sense to anyone who wants to be re elected to avoid any involvement in it.<p>(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!)
> This is just virtue signaling to Iran in the hopes their cargo ships don't get targeted, or to mitigate future tolls.<p>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.
I don't think IRGC cares, they recently attacked a ship with oil for China even China is their main strategic partner (admittedly most ships which they are letting to pass the strait are China bound too).
Or perhaps it's in the context of the current US administration having spent the past year telling Europe to get screwed on trade, military etc?
Even if you're right that's not virtue signalling, that's not joining in on a war against someone in hopes they won't treat you as a military target. That is just regular diplomacy.
Just virtue signaling to show citizens they are not totally occupied (unlike Germany)
I'm curious how western Europeans reconcile their supposed desire to have Russia not invade Europe with simping for Russia's #1 defense partner?<p>Or do they just not care because Poland and Germany are east of them?
So far it's only been the US lifting sanctions and greatly understating the military aid (including but not limited to drones) and intelligence (for targeting US and its allies) provided by Russia to Iran. In addition to all of the above, this war has been a great help to their declining finances.
We (many of us) are not fans of participating in a war without clear achievable objectives and a legal justification that also makes our lives objectively worse.
The defence against russia is something that Trump administration is trying to dismantle currently: <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-wont-divert-patriot-air-defense-systems-to-gulf/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-wont-divert-patriot-a...</a>
If Iran is Russia's "#1 defense partner" then the issue is less for western Europeans to sort out and more for Russia to reconcile.
Does the US lifting sanctions on Iran mid-war count as simping?<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d415g55nno" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d415g55nno</a><p>I think Europe just wants to be left out of it.
Not invading a country is "simping" now?
On the one hand the US has pushed for this by weakening NATO. On the other hand what's interesting is that the EU's primary defense focus is Ukraine whose primary adversary's primary defense partner is Iran, including creator of the dominant drone that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. So while it makes sense that European countries are doing what they can to avoid being targeted by Iranian retaliation, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for Europe to not be able to do much to defend its interests (in Ukraine or the Gulf). All of this will lead to a newly muscular Europe, presumably. Which is what the US has been pushing for. But the US will have to get used to getting less red carpet treatment in Europe.
I'm sure Europe would <i>in theory</i> prefer to be unified against Iran (for the reasons you mention, namely Russia), but the way this war was started was just too colossally stupid. It (entirely predictably) jacked up oil prices, so Iran is making more money on their exports, and Russian sanctions are being lifted. The immediate consequences of this war are directly funding our (both the US's and EU's) adversaries. I don't think fear of Iranian (para)military retaliation is much of a factor, but certainly not the main one.
What makes you think Iran is making more money exporting oil than they were before the war?
I had heard that Iranian exports had increased. This [0] is the best source I can find commenting on their output either way, and it says they're exporting about 50% more. That part might be untrue, but the lack of reporting suggests that at worst that their output hasn't decreased. Whatever the change though, the price of oil has increased significantly, which makes them more money. So at present they're making anywhere from 50%-100% more money, depending on whether their exports have increased.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260326-iran-says-oil-exports-reach-1-5m-barrels-per-day-despite-war/" rel="nofollow">https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260326-iran-says-oil-exp...</a>
There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily. So you had a choice: be permanently deterred or take action and bear the pain. Sure Europe would like to avoid that pain for obvious reasons, but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe. If you feel Iran and Russia are strengthened by this you're over-focusing on one key thing: oil revenue, when Iran is weakened by countless other things and Russia is weakened having their entire middle eastern strategic allies <i>including the gulf players they've pandered up to</i> now hostile.
> There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily<p>Agreed, but<p>> but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe<p>I don't think this is a sure thing at all.<p>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.
How is Iran weakened, in what sense? It suffered economic damage and casualties for sure, but I don't think there is anything it cannot recover from. It's just a pure destructive rage from US side without thinking of any long-term strategic results.
The US government were surprised that they closed the strait btw. Let’s not rewrite history to make this all sound planned and foreseen when it clearly was not.<p>Also currently Iran is looking stronger not weaker tbh. The Americans have really fucked it all up.
Weakened Iran is not a given outcome. It's a <i>possible</i> outcome. As for Gulf players, the feel suckered by <i>Trump</i> now. The saudis are begging for Trump to finish the job exactly because they are afraid he <i>won't</i>.
Iran's relationhip to Russia is in no way strategic to EU. Overall trade between Russia and Iran is 1/400th of that of Russia <-> China trade. Breaking the relationship now would not lead to any noticeable effect on Ukraine war. Russia manufactures geran drones itself. And you will not bomb technology/knowledge transfers away anyway. Vast majority of the materials for Russia's war come from China and the rest of the world, incl. USA and Europe.<p>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.