The Iran War, NATO’s Transformation and the New Arctic Power Struggle between Russia, China and the West
–Ch. V. Prabhakar Rao, Senior Journalist, 93915 33339
Greenland may appear on the world map as a vast, frozen expanse, but its strategic importance is far greater than its sparse population or harsh climate would suggest. Located between North America, Europe and Russia, it occupies one of the most strategically important positions in the world.
Therefore, President Donald Trump’s demand that the United States acquire Greenland cannot be viewed merely as a desire to purchase another territory. The real issue is not the land itself, but control over the future of the Arctic.
As the Arctic ice melts, the region is opening up to a new contest among the world’s major powers. Greenland lies at the centre of this emerging rivalry. The real question, therefore, is not simply who will control Greenland. It is whether the United States intends to dominate its allies—or work with them to build a collective Arctic security architecture.
A Race for New Sea Routes?
Greenland occupies a critical position along the North Atlantic and Arctic maritime routes. Its location is highly valuable for monitoring missile threats from Russia, tracking naval movements in the North Atlantic, and operating satellite and space surveillance systems. The United States already maintains a military presence there. The issue, therefore, is not whether Washington has access to Greenland, but whether it wants to expand its military, space and surveillance capabilities in the region.
Yet Greenland’s importance extends far beyond military strategy.
As Arctic ice continues to melt, new maritime routes are gradually becoming accessible. These could eventually create alternative trade routes between Asia and Europe. At the same time, global powers are increasingly interested in the region’s strategic minerals, including rare earth elements, nickel, cobalt and uranium. These resources are critical to electric vehicles, semiconductors, missile systems, artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies.
The geopolitical importance of Greenland is therefore likely to grow as the global competition for strategic minerals and alternative supply chains intensifies.
More Read
The Iran War Has Changed the Security Debate
The global developments of the past few months have given the Greenland question an entirely new dimension.
The war involving Iran has exposed a hard reality to America’s allies: the United States can rapidly shift its military power from one region of the world to another. When American forces became deeply engaged in a conflict in the Middle East, close to Europe, European nations were compelled to think more seriously about their own long-term security.
After the Iran crisis, one question has become increasingly important for America’s allies: When, where and to what extent will the United States choose to intervene militarily in the future? The answer is no longer as predictable as it once appeared.
At the same time, there are growing indications that the United States may seek to reduce some of its military responsibilities in Europe. This is strengthening a new line of thinking among European nations: America remains essential to NATO, but Europe cannot afford to depend entirely on the United States for its own security.
Is NATO Moving Beyond Complete Dependence on the United States?
The recent NATO summit in Ankara gave institutional shape to this changing security environment. NATO member states are increasing their defence spending substantially. European countries and Canada have collectively increased defence investments by more than $139 billion over the past year. Efforts are also accelerating to meet the target of allocating 5 per cent of GDP to defence and security by 2035. The summit also saw the conclusion of new defence procurement agreements worth more than €50 billion, while NATO countries agreed to invest $40 billion over the next five years in drones and counter-drone systems.
NATO, therefore, is no longer simply an alliance dependent on American military power. European countries and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for their own defence. European nations are also taking on more significant roles within NATO’s command structure.
This is strengthening the alliance on the one hand. On the other, it also signals a gradual restructuring of American dominance within the alliance.
Why Greenland Matters More Now
Against this backdrop, Greenland has become even more important. The Iran war demonstrated one crucial reality: security crises can emerge simultaneously in multiple regions. Conflict in the Middle East, the Russian threat in Europe, China’s challenge in the Indo-Pacific and the emerging strategic contest in the Arctic could all unfold at the same time.
This raises a fundamental question: Can the United States alone effectively manage all these theatres simultaneously?
That is why Greenland is becoming increasingly important to Washington. It is not merely a base from which Russia or China can be monitored. It is a northern strategic platform from which the United States can expand its military, surveillance and space capabilities across several security domains. But this is where the contradiction in Trump’s policy becomes evident.
The United States needs its allies. Yet, at the same time, it is questioning the sovereignty of Denmark and the political rights of the people of Greenland. Washington wants NATO countries to increase their defence spending, while simultaneously asserting claims over territory belonging to a NATO member.
Is Trump’s Pressure Producing the Opposite Result?
Trump’s pressure has prompted Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom to increase their investments in Arctic security. In that sense, it has produced precisely the kind of outcome Washington has long demanded: greater defence spending by its allies. But there is another side to this development.
These countries are not only strengthening their military capabilities; they are also increasingly recognising the need to reduce their complete dependence on the United States. The Iran war, shifting American military priorities and indications of a possible reduction in the US military presence in parts of Europe are all reinforcing this trend.
In other words, Trump’s pressure may be encouraging NATO allies to spend more on defence—but it may also be encouraging them to become more strategically independent of Washington. That could ultimately create a serious dilemma for the United States.
A Strategic Opportunity for Russia and China?
The emerging situation presents a strategic opportunity for both Russia and China. Russia is expanding its military infrastructure in the Arctic and strengthening its fleet of icebreakers. China, meanwhile, is increasing its influence through scientific research, infrastructure projects and investments in strategic minerals.
If trust between the United States and Europe deteriorates, Moscow and Beijing could gain greater room for manoeuvre in the Arctic. The future Arctic competition will not be limited to warships and missiles. Satellite surveillance, artificial intelligence, drones, cyber operations, undersea communication cables and strategic mineral supply chains will all become instruments of geopolitical competition.
The Arctic is rapidly becoming a theatre where military power, technology, resources and economic influence intersect.
America Does Not Need to Own Greenland
The NATO view is increasingly clear: the United States does not need to acquire Greenland in order to protect its strategic interests. Those interests can be secured through cooperation with Denmark, the people of Greenland, Canada, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. As the Ankara summit demonstrated, NATO is already moving towards a model of greater burden-sharing and collective responsibility.
What the United States needs now is not more territory, but more trust. The Iran war reminded America’s allies of the immense importance of US military power. At the same time, it also increased uncertainty about which region Washington might prioritise next.
The Ankara NATO summit appears to have provided a response to that uncertainty: Europe and Canada must be prepared to shoulder a greater share of their own security responsibilities.
The Iran war and the Ankara NATO summit have therefore given the Greenland question a much broader significance. The world appears to be moving away from a security system dependent almost entirely on a single dominant power towards a more distributed system in which regional powers share greater responsibility.
The Greenland controversy is therefore not merely a dispute over a small or distant territory. It is a test of whether the old US-led global security system is coming to an end—or whether it is being rebuilt in a new form.
Greenland may ultimately determine not only the future of the Arctic, but also the future shape of the Western alliance itself.