Ex-Iceland President Warns of ‘Monumental’ Fallout as U.S. Rhetoric Sharpens on Greenland Ownership

Iceland’s former President Olafur Grimsson cautions that any U.S. attempt to seize Greenland could trigger unprecedented geopolitical consequences, amid heightened tensions over the Arctic’s strategic future.

Diplomatic discussions involving representatives from Greenland, Denmark, and the United States concluded on Wednesday without reaching consensus on the contentious issue of Greenland’s ownership. The debate intensified as former Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson warned that any U.S. move to seize the autonomous Danish territory would provoke "monumental consequences" for both the Western alliance and the broader global order.

Grimsson, who served as Iceland’s longest-standing president from 1996 to 2016 and now chairs the Arctic Circle—an influential annual forum on Arctic affairs—provided his assessment during an interview on CNBC’s Access Middle East. He emphasized that the repercussions of such an action would be on a scale "never seen in living memory."

President Donald Trump has recently amplified rhetoric concerning Greenland, underscoring its strategic significance to U.S. national security. Greenland, while an autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark, is situated in a geopolitically vital area rich in minerals and natural resources. Trump has expressed concerns about the growing influence of foreign powers, particularly China and Russia, in the Arctic region surrounding the island.

Despite these assertions, Grimsson argued that fears about Russian or Chinese expansion in the Arctic remain premature. He suggested that the focus should be on cooperative engagement rather than confrontational approaches. The former president cautioned that any attempt by the United States to acquire Greenland by force would severely destabilize longstanding alliances and disrupt the international framework governing Arctic governance.

Greenland’s strategic location has attracted increasing global attention amid the ongoing effects of climate change, which have made Arctic resources and shipping routes more accessible. The island’s vast deposits of rare minerals essential for modern technologies further heighten its geopolitical importance.

Denmark, which maintains sovereignty over Greenland, has historically managed the island’s foreign affairs and defense, though Greenland exercises considerable self-governance. The recent high-level diplomatic meeting was convened to address the rising tensions and clarify positions regarding Greenland’s status and future.

Observers note that the U.S. interest in Greenland aligns with broader Arctic strategic competition, where multiple nations seek to secure influence over emerging trade routes and resource reserves. However, heightened rhetoric and unilateral moves risk undermining decades of Arctic cooperation, which has generally been characterized by multilateral dialogue and shared governance frameworks.

Grimsson’s warnings serve as a reminder of the delicate balance in Arctic geopolitics and the potential costs of escalating conflicts over territorial claims. His call for measured diplomacy underscores the importance of maintaining stability in a region increasingly viewed as a critical frontier for global security and economic interests.

As the international community monitors developments, the outcome of Greenland’s status discussions will likely influence future Arctic policy and international relations among the world’s leading powers.