The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has reshaped President Donald Trump’s case for taking control of Greenland—and exposed widening cracks in the NATO alliance

At first glance, greenland and iran have little in common—one icy, the other with scorching deserts. Yet the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran may, unexpectedly, have strengthened Pres ident Donald Trump’s arguments that the United States needs to own Green land—arguments he made most forcefully in January, horrifying European allies in NATO and the public, most of all in Denmark, which owns the territory. So when some of those allies declined to support the U.S. in its war that began more than two months ago, Trump’s stated goal of better protecting the nation in a fast-changing geopolitical and technolog ical era may just have made owning Greenland even more pressing, especially with the island on a poten tially unpredictable path to independence, experts have told Newsweek. Others, however, say that with the congressional midterm elections in November approaching fast, Trump’s hands are tied on any further moves on the Arctic territory. As much as he wants to own it, aggressive action could cost him votes, even among his core MAGA supporters who increasingly are unhappy about his growing foreign interventions. The White House has highlighted the connection

The White House has highlighted the connection president’s remarks in April on its X account as the U.S. and Iran prepared for talks in Islamabad on end ing the conflict: “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREEN LAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!” Other messages by the president on his Truth Social account also linked Iran, Greenland and NATO. The path between Greenland and Iran may be wind ing, but for the current U.S. administration they are part of something directly relevant: the future of trans atlantic cooperation and of NATO, the post-World War II defensive alliance that kept the peace during the Cold War and which turned 77 years old in April. Speaking on background, a White House official told Newsweek: “As President Trump has said, NATO was tested, and they failed. President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO clear, and as the president has emphasized, ‘the United States will remember.’” Perception of Security Threats At the heart of Trump’s arguments for owning Greenland is a gulf between American and European perceptions of security threats, said Michael Lucci, the founder of State Armor, a political organization that works for national security resilience at the state level

including Britain, France and Spain, were unwilling to fully or partially support the U.S. in its war on Iran, refusing basing or overflight to the Air Force or to send war ships to patrol or open the Iran-controlled Gulf of Hormuz. “The gap between American and Euro pean perceptions of security threats is quickly becoming unsustainable,” Lucci told Newsweek. “In January, European capitals took great offense when President Trump argued for U.S. ownership of Greenland. By March, America’s military was being denied the use of bases and airspace… because some NATO allies do not view Iran as a threat, and therefore took the position that undermining American lethality against the Iranian regime was the right thing to do,” Lucci said. “This underlines why President Trump argued for American ownership of Green land,” he continued. “Greenland has dra matic security implications for North America…and the gap between American and European perceptions of external threats continues to grow.” Others took note, too. “NATO insists US doesn’t need to own Greenland; havIng bases there is good enough for natl security,” KT McFarland, a former senior national security adviser who has served four U.S. presidents, wrote on X. “But NATO countries just refused us access to OUR bases to refuel, they won’t even let our planes overfly their airspace. They just proved the point why we DO need to own Greenland,” McFarland wrote. But it was an exaggeration. Germany continued to provide the U.S. with its Ramstein military base, and Romania in Europe’s southeast approved an American request to deploy capa bilities including for aircraft refueling and satellite communications, “effec tively expanding the geographic reach of allied air power,” wrote Alex Serban and Kirsten Fontenrose of the Atlantic Coun cil, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. For sure, it’s complicated. Others don’t see a connection—just chaos, albeit underlined by an “America First” policy. “The thread is naked self-interest and absolutism around America First. And anything else is transactional,” said Andy Pryce, a former British diplomat who specializes in countering information threats and cognitive defense. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, headquar tered in Washington, D.C., with branches in London and Brussels. China’s Underlying Role Yet Pryce said that something even bigger underlined the logic of this complex geo political moment: China. Because China largely controls the global production and refining of rare earths, and has used this to pressure the U.S. for concessions as it seeks to displace America’s global standing. “So, [owning] Greenland is [about] rare earth metals, and potentially the sort of more peripheral arguments on defense, but they’re sort of taken care of anyway, in terms of the current treaty and the current capability they have in Greenland,” said Pryce, referring to a 1951 defense agreement between the U.S. and Den mark which allows Washington to main tain military installations in Greenland. “And I suppose underneath the immediate nt is that 77 million people voted for Trump and a decent proportion of those people knew what he is and what his agenda is globally, or lack of agenda glob ally. At the moment [he] has few guard rails, few checks and balances,” Pryce said. “We might want to kid ourselves…that somebody else becoming president and saying nice things about NATO changes the real-life deterrence, [but] I don’t think it does. I don’t see the political will to wor

hearing many Democrats jumping up and down shouting about this,” Pryce said. “So, I think any government in Europe would be crazy to think within the next 20 years that you’re going to have any degree of stability of the Atlantic…European governments really need to think long and hard about every aspect of their national security.” Three-way talks between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland on the island’s future began in January and are ongoing, though Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who recently submitted her government’s resignation, and her Green land counterpart Jens-Frederik Nielsen have opposed Trump’s bid to own it. “The administration is participating in diplomatic high-level technical talks with the governments of Greenland and Den mark to address United States’ national security interests in Greenland,” the White House official told Newsweek. “We are not going to participate in a back and forth through the media, but we are very optimistic that we’re on a good trajectory,” the official said. Right About Russia For years, the U.S. called on Europe to spend more on its own defense. Budgets fell instead. For years, too, Europe failed to see that Russia threatened its security, deeply frustrating the U.S. and weakening the transatlantic bond, said Lucci. “American leaders have become exas perated with Europe’s leaders because our European allies have consistently taken a much narrower view of security threats at the expense of European security,” he said. “

The American view of Russia as a per sistent threat to Europe was proven cor rect, but America’s leaders were unable to convince Europe’s leaders to stop buying Russian gas, strengthen their economies and build up their militaries until three years into Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine,” in 2022, he said. Russia is also waging hybrid war across Europe, with governments scrambling to respond. “Today, the U.S. argues that China, Rus sia and Iran are threats to both American and European security. European leaders do not seem to recognize [the] need for serious action to counter Iran and China, despite both of those regimes quite openly supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and despite the broader threats of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and CCP [Chinese Communist Party] economic and hybrid warfare upon Europe and the U.S.,” Lucci said. Midterms as a brake? Still, the midterm elections are likely to dampen any further effort to push for out right control of Greenland, at least kineti cally. “The Greenland debate won’t flame up again because before the midterms it would provide food for those who oppose it, and that’s both the breakaway MAGAs and the Democrats,” said Nathalie Vogel, a research fellow with the Center for Inter marium Studies at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C. “They’re saying, ‘He wants to involve us in another foreign adventure, but we have enough problems at home’. It would cost him the election and I don’t think it will happen,” Vogel said. She pointed out that polls showed that most Americans oppose the U.S. seizing Greenland, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress to prohibit the use of federal funds to annex or seize the territory without consent. With the Iran war, “the mood has got ten even worse within MAGA about for eign intervention,” Vogel said. Didi Kirsten Tatlow is a Newsweek senior correspondent, international affairs. Email her at d.kirstentatlow@newsweek.co

https://www.sanjhamorcha.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Newsweek_0105.pdf