Minister, let’s start with the issue that concerns everyone: the ongoing war. Could you outline the possible scenarios, from the most favourable to the least? Where do we stand?
“The best-case scenario, naturally, is for the war to end as soon as possible. Wars, as we know, cause too many civilian casualties and have serious economic repercussions, including crises that hit the poorest countries hardest. We talk a lot about oil and gas, but little about fertilizers. In the coming months, some countries risk not having enough bread or food—essentially facing famine. From the start, I feared this would not be a short war: Iran has been preparing for years. Since it refuses to give up its nuclear program, it was predictable that negotiations could fail and that an Israeli attack, perhaps with American support, might occur. Iran has a solid military structure: missiles, drones, launch systems. Despite the destruction inflicted on its armed forces, it can still resist. Today’s strike has dealt a serious blow to Tehran’s establishment, but I don’t think it will be enough to make Iran surrender. Their strategy, knowing they would likely lose against the US and Israel, is to create chaos and put pressure on Muslim countries, particularly Sunni and Gulf states. The best outcome would be a negotiated agreement, which aligns with American objectives: engagement with a new leadership, similar to the Venezuelan model. Israel, on the other hand, seeks a total regime change. That’s broadly my view today. And then, of course, there is the issue of the Strait of Hormuz”.
Minister, public concern is high. Following NATO and EU discussions with the US President, isn’t it somewhat unrealistic to leave the Hormuz issue almost entirely to the Americans, given their energy independence while Europe depends on imports? It’s difficult and politically sensitive, but perhaps it’s better to see the task through rather than leave it half-finished, which could allow Iran to exploit it as leverage.
“Italy has always stayed out of this war. Intervening in the Strait of Hormuz would effectively mean going to war, and war carries consequences. As Europeans, we have decided to reinforce defensive and maritime protection missions along the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal, alongside anti-piracy operations further east. We will continue these operations, and we will defend Cyprus, which was attacked as an EU member, because we have a bond of solidarity. Entering a war is complicated for us. Our commitment lies not in military engagement but in seeking stability in the Middle East and reaching an agreement. Going into a war in the Strait of Hormuz, even militarily, is questionable. Let us also remember that the Persians were defeated by the ancient Greeks at Salamis because they got trapped among the islands, where the Greeks, far more agile, were able to overcome them. We must avoid repeating Salamis in reverse”.
As a journalist yourself, what’s your impression of media coverage—not just in Italy, but in the West—which seems more focused on criticizing the US President than on representing the hopes of the Iranian people? Sometimes it almost seems that Western media are more attentive to Tehran’s political elite than to the streets of Tehran.
“Much of the debate revolves around Trump. I reaffirm that Italy remains a strategic ally of the United States, as we have been under successive administrations: Trump, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Bush and Reagan. The US represents the other face of the West; our alliance cannot depend on who is President. Otherwise, the relationship collapses. That’s why we’ve urged our opposition colleagues to pursue a more shared foreign policy, as Berlusconi did, even when D’Alema authorised NATO bombings in the former Yugoslavia without consulting Parliament. It seems to me that Trump is often used as a tool for political polemics, whereas here we are talking about Italy’s national interest. One may agree or disagree with specific choices, but personal bias cannot interfere: the President of the United States is always the elected officeholder. Instead, we should work for Italy, and only for Italy”.
Let’s talk about war and potential energy problems. It seems that with gas, we’re in a decent position, while oil is somewhat more problematic. Some may exaggerate the risk, immediately thinking of opening up to Russia as if Russian oil and gas were the only sources.
“First of all, we must say that at the moment we face no problems, because as long as there are oil and gas reserves, there is no reason for prices to rise. Certainly, speculation occurs, but many reserves have also been released to curb speculation. Regarding gas, the price is set in Amsterdam, and perhaps a cap should be considered, although private companies ultimately make the purchases. Regarding oil, the government is studying possible measures. We are evaluating what can be done as the situation develops”.
Looking to the future, let’s take a step back. The Green Deal has been a catastrophe, initiated in the previous European legislature by the devastating role of Mr Timmermans, who was promoted here by the Democratic Party leaders.
“The other parties’ agreement was intended to appoint Timmermans as President of the European Commission. We opposed it. I still remember one Sunday morning: Conte had already said yes, so I called Salvini, who was then Deputy Prime Minister, and said, “Are you crazy to appoint Timmermans?” We blocked the agreement. I was President of the European Parliament”.
That was news.
“I also remember the extremely tough debate in the European Parliament over the ban on non-electric car production from 2035. The Socialists rejected our proposals, so much so that I criticized the Democratic Party, saying that this decision would cost Italy 70,000 jobs. I said: you were the Party of Workers, but now you seem to be the Party against Workers. Things are changing, but it takes time. Some reckless rules have been blocked—on deforestation, on packaging—it’s an ongoing battle. On the ETS, there has been a reconsideration. It’s a rollback, not 180 degrees, but still a rollback, thanks also to the presence of the European People’s Party, which is the largest in Parliament. We are working to prevent further environmental policy mistakes”.
So, from the bad situation we’re in, do you think we can seize the opportunity to radically rethink the Green Deal and move from “no to almost everything” to “yes to everything” (nuclear, clean coal, renewables, oil and gas)?
“Absolutely yes. Regarding nuclear, even the European Commission stated in its taxonomy document that nuclear energy is not polluting. More generally, I am not a denier, but we must act against climate change while remembering that our duty is not only to ensure clean air for our children and grandchildren—we must also ensure they have food for lunch and dinner. If you breathe but don’t eat, you starve”.
So, to summarise, Tajani to Greta Thunberg: “The end of the month comes before the end of the world.” Did I translate that correctly?
“Absolutely, and I would also say the same to Timmermans”
Minister, we are three days from a referendum. Let’s connect the topics: nuclear power could already make us independent today. Unfortunately, in 1987, a referendum went the wrong way, and we are here lamenting 39 years later. Could we make another mistake next Sunday and vote No again?
“This is a historic opportunity. It is a historic referendum. If we want to finally change Italy, we must start here. Moreover, we are talking about a system imposed during Fascism: Mussolini enforced the unification of judicial careers. Now we are asking for a more European-style judiciary.
If the judge judging you is a classmate, a career colleague, a personal friend of the same faction as the public prosecutor, that is unacceptable. It’s as if I go to the stadium: the home team buses arrive, fans cheer, the opposing team arrives, players get off, executives get off, and by chance, the referee, fourth official, and linesmen also arrive. They travelled together, maybe trained together. Even in good faith, would you say they are influenced by friendship with the team they travelled with? Of course they are”.
Let’s return to the lottery system for the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM).
“What I am saying now, I wrote back in 1980–82 as a journalist at Il Giornale, so I’ve never changed my mind. Unlike many in the Democratic Party, who now oppose career separation while previously campaigning for it. Let’s free the judiciary from political pressures: the best way to eliminate factions is to draw CSM members by lot. They say it’s an outrage to the Constitution, but the Constitution already provides for lotteries for the Ministers’ Court and the High Court, which decides on impeachment of the President. Perhaps they haven’t studied it or pretend they haven’t.
This explains why collusions lead to miscarriages of justice: judges too friendly with prosecutors are convinced the prosecutor is right even when wrong. That’s how we had the Tortora and Zuncheddu cases. Today we presented a bill for compensation for those affected, together with friends from the Radical Party”.
A final flash, Minister, one thing struck me…
“(Smiles) I am a little scared because Gratteri said he will settle the accounts the day after. Who knows what Gratteri will do then…”
But look, we can report this: Gratteri won’t see it in the ballot box. There’s a rather unusual demonstration planned for the No camp, with all the leaders of the broad coalition. Legitimate, of course, but such a demonstration would make sense during the general elections next year, in confrontation with the government. What does it have to do with the referendum? If a left-wing citizen wants to vote Yes, would they be punished, treated as a traitor? If a left-wing voter feels intimidated, we want to tell them that next year they can vote against the government, but this time, they can freely vote Yes.
“Exactly. On Sunday and Monday, people are not voting for or against Tajani, Meloni, or Salvini. They are voting to change Italy’s judicial system. This is not a matter of right, centre, or left—it has been debated since the Constitution. A left-wing citizen who believes in separating careers, who believes in abolishing factions, should vote Yes. If we want to remove political infiltration in the judiciary, we must vote Yes.
Later, if they want to remove Tajani, maybe next year they will vote against the government parties, for alternative parties. The left has always claimed to uphold socialism and freedom, and if one is left-wing, one must support freedom—including the freedom to vote Yes without fear of “settling accounts” the next day. This message is unworthy of the head of Italy’s largest prosecutor’s office”.
Thank you, Minister.
“I vote Yes”.
You vote Yes? Very well, we’ll notify the Naples prosecutor’s office.
“I’ll go to the Ministers’ Court before they can arrest me”.
