Portugal’s investigation into the American use of Lajes Air Base during the war against Iran raises fundamental questions about national sovereignty, military alliances, and the limits of international law when powerful nations depend upon the cooperation of smaller states.
In the middle of the Atlantic, where the island of Terceira has long served as a strategic meeting point between Europe and North America, Lajes Air Base has once again become the center of a debate extending far beyond the geographical boundaries of the Azores. For decades, the military installation has represented one of the most consequential dimensions of the relationship between Portugal and the United States, connecting a small European nation to the strategic interests of a global superpower. Yet that relationship now faces renewed legal and political scrutiny following the decision of Portugal’s Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the use of the base by American military aircraft during the war against Iran. The inquiry raises questions that reach into the foundations of international law: what responsibilities do allied countries bear when their territory facilitates military operations, and can domestic legal institutions meaningfully constrain the actions of a much more powerful partner?
These questions are examined by foreign policy analyst Eldar Mamedov in an article titled Portugal Tests Whether Law Can Constrain Empire, published on October 14 by Foreign Policy In Focus, a platform associated with the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. Mamedov, a nonresident researcher at the Quincy Institute and a member of the council of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Pugwash movement, argues that the Portuguese investigation should not be understood merely as another domestic political controversy. Rather, he presents it as a test of the relationship between legal obligations and geopolitical power, particularly when the military operations of the United States depend upon the facilities and cooperation of allied governments. In his interpretation, the essential issue is whether agreements governing military access can impose enforceable conditions or whether strategic dependence ultimately determines how those agreements are applied.
The investigation followed a complaint submitted by Portugal’s Left Bloc, a political party opposed to the war. At its center is the authorization granted by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro’s government for several American military flights to transit through Lajes Air Base. The Portuguese government maintains that the country is not participating in the conflict, while defending the legality of the permissions granted to Washington. The controversy, however, concerns the distinction between direct military participation and the provision of facilities that may support another country’s operations. This distinction is particularly important in the context of military alliances, where logistical assistance, transit rights, and access to infrastructure can have operational significance even when the host country does not deploy forces into combat.
According to Mamedov’s interpretation, the bilateral defense agreement dating from 1951 permits American use of Lajes under established arrangements during peacetime, but requires express Portuguese authorization when hostilities are involved. This distinction places considerable importance on the circumstances surrounding the flights, the information available to Portuguese authorities, and the legal basis upon which permission was granted. Montenegro has defended the government’s decisions and cautioned against what he described as political judgments by the justice system. American Secretary of State Marco Rubio has maintained that Washington followed the applicable protocols. The article also reports that Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel viewed efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and safeguard freedom of navigation positively. These positions reflect the government’s emphasis on the legitimacy of its decisions and the strategic considerations involved, while critics question whether the authorizations were compatible with Portugal’s obligations under international law.
Mamedov emphasizes that Portugal’s Public Prosecutor’s Office operates under the principle of legality and has a responsibility to investigate when sufficient grounds exist. Consequently, he argues, the opening of an inquiry should not automatically be interpreted as a partisan intervention. At the same time, an investigation does not establish wrongdoing, nor does its existence guarantee that legal or political responsibility will ultimately be assigned. The proceedings must determine the relevant facts and assess them against the applicable legal framework. The larger significance of the case, in Mamedov’s analysis, lies in whether that process can function independently of the political sensitivities associated with Portugal’s relationship with the United States.
Former European Parliament member and Portuguese diplomat Ana Gomes offers a particularly critical assessment of the government’s position. She argues that American attacks against Iran violated the United Nations Charter and questions the circumstances under which Portuguese authorization was obtained. According to the account presented in Mamedov’s article, Gomes maintains that Lisbon granted permission before fully understanding the details of the American request. These allegations, if substantiated, would raise additional questions about the information available to Portuguese decision-makers and the adequacy of the procedures used to authorize military transit. Her interpretation remains a contested legal and political position rather than a conclusion established by the opening of the investigation.
Gomes also recalls Portugal’s involvement in controversies surrounding the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program during the years following the September 11 attacks. That program involved the transfer of terrorism suspects between jurisdictions, including to locations where detainees were subjected to torture and other abuses. By invoking this historical precedent, she expresses skepticism about whether the present investigation will result in accountability for political decision-makers. The comparison is not intended to establish that the two situations are legally identical, but to highlight recurring questions concerning oversight, transparency, and the responsibilities of governments that provide logistical support to American security operations.
Beyond the immediate legal dispute, the controversy exposes three broader dimensions of transatlantic relations. The first concerns the responsibility of allied governments for decisions taken within their own jurisdictions. Military cooperation does not eliminate national sovereignty, and treaties do not necessarily relieve governments of their obligations under domestic and international law. The second concerns the unequal distribution of power within alliances, particularly when smaller countries depend upon larger partners for security, intelligence, and defense capabilities. The third involves Europe’s continuing debate over strategic autonomy and its capacity to develop a more independent approach to international security. Gomes argues that Portugal’s strategic dependence should be oriented toward the European Union rather than the United States, a position that reflects one side of a longstanding European discussion about the appropriate balance between transatlantic cooperation and European decision-making.
For the Azores, the debate carries an additional historical dimension. Lajes Air Base has long connected the archipelago to international military strategy, giving an island territory a significance far greater than its population or geographical size might otherwise suggest. The installation has been associated with employment, infrastructure, economic activity, and Portugal’s diplomatic relationship with Washington. It has also periodically generated controversy over the environmental, social, and political consequences of hosting a major foreign military presence. The current investigation therefore raises questions not only about international law but also about the relationship between the strategic importance of the islands and the democratic accountability of the decisions made concerning their territory.
For Azoreans living in the United States and Canada, this history is particularly complex. The relationship between Portugal and North America has been shaped by generations of migration, family connections, cultural exchange, and economic cooperation. Lajes belongs to that broader history, although its military role must be distinguished from the human relationships that bind the communities on both sides of the Atlantic. The present controversy illustrates how the interests of governments, the obligations of international agreements, and the experiences of island communities can intersect without always being identical. It also demonstrates why public understanding of such decisions matters, especially when military cooperation may have implications beyond the immediate territory where facilities are located.
The outcome of the Portuguese investigation remains uncertain. Its significance will depend upon the evidence gathered, the legal interpretation adopted by the competent authorities, and any conclusions that emerge from the judicial process. Mamedov’s central argument is that the case provides an opportunity to examine whether the legal obligations governing an alliance can operate as meaningful constraints upon the exercise of military power. The Portuguese government and American officials maintain that the relevant procedures were followed, while critics dispute the legality and circumstances of the authorizations. The inquiry will have to address those questions through evidence and law rather than political assertion alone.
The Atlantic has always connected the Azores to events taking place far beyond the islands. Ships, aircraft, emigrants, commercial exchanges, and military agreements have made the archipelago part of histories unfolding on distant continents. Yet geography does not determine the answers to questions of sovereignty and responsibility. Those answers must emerge from institutions, agreements, and the willingness of governments to submit their decisions to scrutiny. In that sense, the debate surrounding Lajes is not simply about the movements of military aircraft across an island airfield. It is about how a democratic state understands the responsibilities that accompany its alliances, and how international law is interpreted when the interests of nations of profoundly unequal power converge upon the same stretch of Atlantic territory.
Based on a Story in Diário Insular – José Lourenço, director. The Photo is from JEdgardo Vieira.