For most of the modern era, Greenland existed at the edge of geopolitics.
Vast, frozen, and sparsely populated, it functioned less as a political actor than as a strategic backdrop. That era is ending. Over recent weeks, Greenland has moved to the center of a dispute that is straining NATO, unsettling transatlantic relations, and revealing how rapidly the Arctic is becoming a theater of global competition. 

At the heart of the crisis is President Donald Trump’s renewed insistence that the United States must acquire Greenland. The idea is not new. Trump first raised it during his initial term. What is different now is the context. A faster melting of the ice has accelerated access to Arctic shipping routes….opening up new routes for trade. Russia has expanded its northern military footprint. China has declared itself a near Arctic power. Against that backdrop, Trump has framed Greenland not as a diplomatic question, but as a strategic imperative.

“We have to have it,” Trump said recently. He dismissed Denmark’s sovereignty claim as historically arbitrary, arguing that discovery centuries ago does not confer permanent ownership. The remark reflects a broader argument Trump has made repeatedly. In his view, Denmark lacks the capacity to defend Greenland, and American control is necessary for global security.

That position has been conveyed not only in public remarks but in private communications. In a message to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, later released by Trump himself, the president argued that Denmark cannot protect Greenland from Russia or China and questioned why Denmark retains a right of ownership at all. He linked the issue to NATO obligations, asserting that after decades of U.S. support, the alliance should now act in America’s interest.

The message also revealed how personal grievance has blended with strategic calculation. Referencing his failure to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump wrote that he no longer felt bound to think purely in terms of peace and would prioritize U.S. interests first. Greenland, in that framing, became both a symbol and a test.

European leaders reacted with alarm. French President Emmanuel Macron sent Trump a private message stating, “My friend… I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland.” Trump later shared the message publicly. The tone was restrained, but the concern was unmistakable. For Europe, unilateral acquisition threatens principles of sovereignty that underpin the alliance.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has attempted to steady the situation. Trump shared a message from Rutte praising his actions in Syria and stating that he would highlight Trump’s work at Davos and on Gaza and Ukraine. Rutte added that he was committed to finding a way forward on Greenland. The language reflected careful diplomacy. NATO officials have avoided endorsing U.S. ownership while signaling openness to expanded alliance engagement in the Arctic.

The debate has also produced moments of levity that mask deeper unease. Italy’s defense minister dismissed talk of a multinational European troop deployment to Greenland with dry humor. “Imagine 15 Italians, 15 French, 15 Germans in Greenland,” he said. “This seems like the beginning of a joke.” The remark underscored how symbolic such deployments would be and how limited Europe’s military leverage remains in the region.

The crisis has drawn in actors beyond Europe. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed that he discussed Greenland with Chinese President Xi Jinping, emphasizing alignment on the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark. The statement was notable less for any signal toward China than for illustrating how Arctic instability invites broader international involvement.

Russia has seized the rhetorical opening. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Greenland is not a natural part of Denmark. The comment echoed Trump’s argument while advancing Moscow’s long standing objective of reshaping Arctic norms. Russia has steadily expanded its Arctic military presence, reopening bases, deploying air defense systems, and increasing patrols along northern sea routes.

In December 2025, the White House signaled renewed focus on Greenland by appointing a special envoy tasked with Arctic and Greenland affairs. Danish and Greenlandic officials publicly rejected any discussion of transfer of sovereignty.

On January 6, 2026, Trump stated that acquiring Greenland was essential for national security and declined to rule out force. The comment marked a shift from earlier framing that emphasized negotiation.

Between January 9 and January 12, Trump escalated his rhetoric, saying the United States would acquire Greenland “one way or the other” and dismissing international legal objections. High level talks with Danish and Greenlandic officials followed but ended without agreement.

From January 13 to January 15, Denmark proposed expanded NATO surveillance and cooperation around Greenland as an alternative. Several European NATO members discussed limited symbolic deployments to the island under a collective framework.

On January 17, Trump announced planned tariffs on multiple European countries unless progress was made. Protests erupted in Copenhagen under banners reading “Hands Off Greenland,” while Denmark increased its military readiness.

By today, Trump posted AI generated images depicting Greenland as U.S. territory. European leaders will meet in Davos to coordinate responses, while NATO explored options for a formal Arctic mission.

The strategic logic behind U.S. interest in Greenland is not imaginary. Greenland sits astride emerging Arctic shipping routes and hosts Pituffik Space Base, a critical node for missile warning and space surveillance. Beneath its ice lie rare earth minerals essential for advanced technologies. As ice retreats, access improves and competition intensifies.

For U.S. planners, several concrete goals underpin this push:

From a narrow security perspective, deeper U.S. control appears attractive. Denmark’s military footprint is limited. The United States already shoulders the primary defense burden. Russia and China are expanding their Arctic ambitions.

The costs, however, are substantial. Tariff threats risk triggering a trade conflict with Europe. More damaging is the erosion of trust within NATO. Several European officials warn privately that forced acquisition would fracture the alliance at a moment when unity is critical for deterrence in Eastern Europe.

There is also the question of Greenlanders themselves. The island’s population of approximately 56,000 enjoys broad autonomy within the Danish realm. While there is interest in eventual independence, there is little support for becoming U.S. territory. Greenlandic leaders insist that decisions about the island’s future must involve its people.

In an NBC interview, Trump declined to say whether he would use force to take Greenland, responding simply, “No comment.” The ambiguity has become part of the pressure.

What is unfolding is not merely a dispute over territory. It is a test of how power is exercised in a changing world. The Arctic was once governed by assumptions of remoteness and cooperation. Climate change has dismantled those assumptions. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic rivalry, alliance politics, and competing visions of order.

How this crisis resolves will shape not only the future of Greenland, but the credibility of NATO and the rules governing the next phase of global competition. For now, the ice is thinning, and so is the margin for error.

Abbas Araghchi’s invitation went out quietly last fall, long before nationwide protests exploded across Iran in late December and long before rights groups began talking about mass killings and crimes against humanity. He was scheduled for a one on one conversation with Financial Times editor Roula Khalaf, likely under the usual Davos theme of “global cooperation in a contested world.”
His name only surfaced publicly around January 17–18, when advocacy groups and journalists noticed he had been added to the program.

That was enough to trigger a backlash. The U.S. based group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) sent a letter urging Davos organizers to pull the plug on Araghchi and any other Iranian officials, arguing that giving a stage to Tehran while civilians were being gunned down would amount to legitimizing a regime in the middle of an atrocity.
UANI’s Jason Brodsky and Mark Wallace took the fight public, and a bunch of voices followed. Senator Lindsey Graham and human rights advocates like Hillel Neuer compared the invitation to hosting an architect of violence during an active crime scene, and some even raised the possibility that Swiss authorities could face pressure to issue arrest warrants over alleged crimes against humanity tied to Araghchi’s role in Iran’s security apparatus.

On January 19, Davos finally woke up. In a short statement,, the World Economic Forum said the Iranian foreign minister “will not be attending Davos,” adding that although he was invited last fall, “the tragic loss of lives of civilians in Iran over the past few weeks means that it is not right for the Iranian government to be represented at Davos this year.”
Organizers stressed that the invitation predated the crackdown, but the timing made that distinction almost academic. The optics of rolling out the red carpet for Tehran’s top diplomat while the regime kills its own citizens were politically impossible to sustain.

Tehran, predictably, pushed back. Araghchi accused Davos of caving to “lies and political pressure from “The Zionists” and its U.S. based proxies and apologists.”
In a statement, he insisted there was “one fundamental truth to the recent violence in Iran”: that the state “had to defend our people against armed terrorists and ISIS‑style killings openly backed by Mossad.”
He called it a “sad irony” that what he described as “Israel’s genocide of Palestinians” and the “mass slaughter of 71,000 innocent people” had never led the WEF to cancel invitations for Israeli officials. President Isaac Herzog, he noted, “did a victory lap in Davos” as early as January 2024 “even as he faced criminal charges in Switzerland for the unfolding genocide in Gaza.” If Davos wanted to pretend to take a moral stance, Araghchi said, “it should at least be consistent about it,” accusing the forum of “moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy” and concluding that “shame is solely reserved for those who think otherwise.”

All of this plays out against the usual stacked talent list: roughly 3,000 cross sector leaders in one location, including a “record” 400 political leaders, 850 top CEOs and 100 tech figures.
This year’s guest list ranges from Microsoft and Meta to Anthropic and DeepMind.
Nvidia’s Jensen Huang is in. Microsoft’s Satya Nadella is in. OpenAI is sending its CFO, Sarah Friar, but interestingly not its CEO, Sam Altman. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni are reported to be attending even though they do not yet appear on the official list. Chinese President Xi Jinping, and the leaders of Brazil and India, are not slated to be attending this year.

Trump’s team will be there in force. His delegation includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and adviser Jared Kushner, with Trump himself scheduled to address the forum on Wednesday.

Trump will officially sign the Board Of Peace charter, marking the beginning of what's being called a “new UN”. 

Davos itself is under new management. Founder Klaus Schwab is not attending after stepping down in April following an investigation into alleged misconduct; he was later cleared of “material wrongdoing.”
In his place, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Roche vice chair André Hoffmann are serving as interim co chairs, trying to pull the forum back toward its traditional economic focus and to reassure corporate leaders that Davos still matters. 

General Ahmad Reza Radan appeared on state television yesterday with a direct ultimatum.
He called on "young people" and those "deceived" into what the regime labels "riots" to surrender within three days…..by January 22.
Those who comply will receive more lenient punishment, lighter penalties, and "significant relief" from the Islamic Republic.
Refuse, and authorities will pursue "rioters and terrorists" individually with the full force of the law. Force of the law, in this case, means execution, and possible torture.

Radan framed the unrest not as legitimate protest but as foreign backed violence, blaming Israel, Mossad, and Donald Trump directly.

The numbers tell a different story. Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) updated its tally yesterday, marking Day 23 of protests across 188 cities in all 31 provinces.
They have confirmed 4,029 deaths, mostly protesters including children and bystanders. Another 9,049 cases remain under review, bringing the estimated total to around 13,078 killed. At least 26,015 people face arrest, with 5,811 suffering severe injuries. Though, as we’ve stressed before, these are only CONFIRMED numbers…Meaning, the actual casual count could be significantly higher.

The internet blackout, now beyond its eleventh day, keeps most of this hidden.
NetBlocks reports national connectivity at roughly 1% of normal levels. The regime has tested limited SMS and a heavily filtered domestic intranet, but full access remains cut off. Leaks via satellite phones and VPNs show fearful quiet in cities once filled with crowds. Still, police are going door to door confiscating any Starlink equipment they find. They really do not want people communicating within Iran, and especially not with the outside world.

During a visit to the Home Front Command, IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir said the military is ready to defend against what he described as “multi front threats,” an apparent reference to Iran amid heightened regional tensions.

“In the face of the scope of the multi front threats to the State of Israel, the Home Front Command stands on defense, is competent, trained, and on high alert,” Zamir said, according to remarks released by the IDF. “The command is prepared at all times to employ a wide range of capabilities to contend with an attack on the civilian home front and to save lives.”

“At the same time, the IDF is prepared to employ an offensive capability unprecedented in its power against any attempt to harm the State of Israel,” he added.

“We are prepared with full defense for any scenario,” Zamir said, noting that lessons from the 12 day war against Iran in June have been implemented. He added that “as part of this, the IDF is also preparing for the possibility of a surprise war.” 

 When? In all likelihood, not before all of the U.S. assets make their way to CENTCOM waters….For example, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group which is still traveling. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the point even sharper. 

“If Iran makes a mistake and attacks us, we will act with a force that Iran has not yet experienced. We are closely monitoring developments, and no one can predict what the future holds for Iran, but whatever happens, Iran will not return to what it once was." 

The threats we face are serious, and Israel will defend itself with full determination. We will respond with strength that Iran has not yet known if Tehran initiates aggression against the people and the State of Israel.”

The ball is truly in Iran’s court. But with arrests, executions, and the constant talk against the Western world, Iran is completely isolated. Even Russia and China have been careful not to say too much about the current situation, trying to play a very cautious game with their Western counterparts. Only time will tell how long that will stand.