The Hindu: Published on 16th May 2025:
Why in News?
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's aggressive interest in Greenland, including threats of acquisition, has triggered security anxieties in Iceland, a nearby Arctic nation with no standing army.
A poll revealed that 74% of Icelanders see Trump's Arctic strategies as a threat to their national security.
The situation has sparked debates in Iceland about military independence, EU relations, and the future of U.S.-Iceland defence ties.
Background:
Iceland, a NATO member since 1949, has no military of its own.
Its defence has been guaranteed by the United States since a 1951 agreement.
The Keflavik base was a critical U.S. hub during WWII and the Cold War. Though closed in 2006, it has regained relevance since 2014 due to Russian actions in Crimea.
Iceland shares the geostrategic Arctic location with Greenland but lacks its mineral resources, making it less of a direct target.
Key Concerns:
U.S. unpredictability under Trump has raised doubts about Washington’s commitment to NATO and its allies.
Iceland fears that Chinese or Russian sabotage of subsea infrastructure (telecoms, energy lines) could become a strategic vulnerability.
Trump’s silence on Iceland, while focusing on Greenland, has created a sense of neglect and unease.
Iceland’s Dilemma:
Military independence is a taboo subject in Iceland due to its pacifist culture.
Some Icelandic leaders are reconsidering reliance on the U.S., especially amid Trump's erratic foreign policy.
There's an emerging debate on whether to shift toward greater European defence collaboration, possibly via:
Stronger ties with the European Union
Support for a European-led NATO framework
Future Possibilities:
Plan B: Iceland could explore rejoining or deepening EU ties; negotiations were started in 2009 but suspended in 2013. A referendum in 2027 may decide whether to resume talks.
EU membership may provide:
Strategic security framework
Economic benefits, including trade, tariffs, and fisheries agreements
Increased European cooperation on Arctic security is being considered amid global power competition.
Geopolitical Significance:
The Arctic is emerging as a geopolitical hotspot due to climate change opening new trade routes.
Russia and China are expanding influence in the region, raising Western security concerns.
Iceland, though small and demilitarized, is strategically important for transatlantic security and undersea infrastructure protection.
Conclusion:
The Trump-era Arctic policy has reshaped Iceland’s security thinking. Though still dependent on the U.S. for defence, Iceland is gradually contemplating European alternatives, wary of future uncertainty. As the Arctic gains global strategic attention, small nations like Iceland are re-evaluating their roles, alliances, and vulnerabilities.
