Italy’s Predator Lost in Kuwait Raises Questions About Force Protection and Risk Assessment

The reported destruction of an Italian MQ-9 Predator and the damage sustained by an Italian Eurofighter during the Iranian missile attack against the U.S.-led base in Kuwait have reopened an important debate about force protection and operational decision-making. According to a report published by Corriere della Sera, Italy had reportedly been warned in advance that the base could become the target of an Iranian strike, yet the decision was allegedly made not to launch the Predator before the attack. If confirmed, the rationale would have been to avoid any action that Tehran could have interpreted as direct Italian support for U.S. military operations.

The same report also mentions that one Italian Eurofighter was damaged during the attack, although its current condition remains unknown.

A decision that deserves clarification

At this stage, Corriere della Sera remains the only source describing the alleged decision-making process, meaning caution is required before drawing definitive conclusions.

However, if the reconstruction is accurate, it inevitably raises several questions.

When military commanders receive credible warning that an installation may soon come under attack, the immediate priorities are normally protecting personnel and preserving high-value military assets whenever possible. An MQ-9 Predator represents an investment of roughly €30 million, while an Eurofighter Typhoon is worth several times that amount. More importantly, both platforms are limited strategic capabilities that cannot simply be replaced in a matter of weeks or months.

Losing such assets therefore means much more than a financial cost. It temporarily reduces operational capability and weakens the availability of aircraft that Italy already operates in relatively small numbers.

Different approaches among allied nations

If the Corriere’s account proves correct, Italy’s reported approach would appear markedly different from that adopted by other allied countries during the same Iranian attack.

French Rafale fighters operating in the region reportedly intercepted Iranian drones heading toward the United Arab Emirates, while British Eurofighters also participated in defensive operations. Against this backdrop, choosing not to relocate vulnerable aircraft—even after receiving warning of a possible strike—would represent a significantly more cautious posture.

Whether that caution reflected political guidance, military assessment or broader diplomatic considerations remains unknown.

What is certain is that the possibility of an Iranian retaliation was widely anticipated. Even outside military circles, many observers considered some form of response highly likely following the escalation in the region. If an attack was considered imminent, protecting valuable aircraft deployed in Kuwait as part of the international mission against ISIS in Iraq would appear to have been an obvious operational priority.

Questions that deserve answers

Ultimately, the most important issue is not assigning blame but understanding how the decisions were made.

If Italy deliberately accepted the risk of leaving aircraft exposed to avoid any perception of direct involvement in U.S. operations, that choice deserves a thorough public explanation. Military and political leaders inevitably face difficult decisions during periods of crisis, but such decisions should also be evaluated in light of the strategic consequences.

With a relatively limited fleet of high-end aircraft and remotely piloted systems, Italy cannot easily absorb the loss of assets that require years to procure and bring into operational service.

Whether additional details emerge in the coming days may determine whether this episode is remembered as an unavoidable wartime loss or as a preventable consequence of an exceptionally cautious political and operational approach.