Italy denied US B-2 bombers access to the Sigonella air base in Sicily on Monday. [1] France restricted American military operations from its territory the same day. [2] Spain had already said no two weeks ago. Three of the five largest European NATO members are now refusing the United States military access for operations against Iran, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's response was a question that would have been unthinkable six months ago: "Why are we in NATO?" [3]

The question was not hypothetical. As we reported yesterday, the White House had already begun questioning the alliance's utility after Spain's initial refusal. Rubio's escalation — from disappointment to existential doubt — arrived within 48 hours. The Atlantic alliance, built on Article 5's mutual defense guarantee, is now being openly challenged by its largest member during an active military operation.

Italy's refusal was the most operationally significant. Sigonella, on Sicily's eastern coast, is NATO's premier logistics hub in the Mediterranean. The base has hosted American strategic bombers, surveillance aircraft, and drone operations for decades. Italy's Corriere della Sera reported that Defense Minister Guido Crosetto approved the denial, citing "the lack of prior authorization from Washington and the lack of UN Security Council authorization." [4] The Italian government did not publicly comment, but defense ministry officials confirmed to Reuters that "current operations do not fall within NATO's operational framework." [1]

France's restrictions were broader. Paris barred US military flights from French airspace for Iran-related operations and denied access to bases in Djibouti that serve as a logistics bridge between Europe and the Gulf. [2] Macron has not publicly commented on the restrictions, though Trump mocked the French president by name during Wednesday night's speech. [5]

The Fox News framing was instructive: "More key US allies block military flights as Iran war rift widens." [6] When Fox News describes European allies as blocking US operations without qualifying the refusal as obstruction, the domestic political cover for NATO skepticism is already built.

Rubio's remarks came during a press conference at the State Department. "If now we've reached a point where the NATO alliance means that we can't use those bases to defend America's interests, then NATO is a one-way street," he said. [3] He added that the administration would "reexamine the entire relationship" once the Iran operation concludes. The qualifier — "once the operation concludes" — is the only restraint. It is also a timer.

The three refusals create a geographic wall. Spain controls the western Mediterranean approach. France controls airspace over continental Europe and maintains the largest military presence in the Horn of Africa. Italy controls the central Mediterranean and the direct route to the Persian Gulf via the Suez Canal. Together, they force US military logistics through a narrow corridor: Germany, the UK, and eastern routes through Turkey — assuming Turkey cooperates, which is not assured given Ankara's role in the China-Pakistan mediation effort.

Germany has not formally denied access, but Berlin has been conspicuously quiet. Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the Bundestag on Wednesday that Germany "supports diplomatic resolution" without addressing basing rights directly. [5] The silence is its own answer.

The European pushback reflects a deeper calculation. The Iran war has no NATO mandate, no UN authorization, and no clear endgame. European leaders watched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and learned that joining an American war without multilateral cover produces political devastation at home and strategic incoherence abroad. Twenty-three years later, they are applying the lesson.

Rubio's response reveals the counter-calculation: if NATO allies will not support US operations when Washington decides they are necessary, then the alliance's value — to Washington — approaches zero. This is the logic of a transactional relationship, not a treaty alliance. And it is now the explicit position of the US Secretary of State.

-- CHARLES ASHFORD, Brussels