U.S. President Donald Trump has intensified his longstanding ambition to acquire Greenland, framing the goal as a critical national security imperative following the recent military operation in Venezuela. This push is escalating transatlantic tensions and raising fundamental questions about the future of NATO.

In comments to reporters, Trump emphasized Greenland's strategic value, stating, "It’s so strategic... We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security." The White House later confirmed it is considering "a range of options" to acquire the autonomous Danish territory, including potential military action. Denmark has responded forcefully, warning that such a move would signify the end of the NATO alliance.

Analysts point to several factors driving this fixation:

• Geopolitical Positioning: Greenland is situated between the U.S. and Russia, astride the vital GIUK naval choke point and emerging Arctic shipping routes. Its location is pivotal for monitoring Russian activity and controlling new maritime corridors.

• Resource Wealth: The island possesses vast untapped reserves of oil, gas, and, crucially, rare earth minerals essential for modern technologies and defense applications, reducing reliance on China.

• Missile Defense: Greenland is viewed as a potential key location for a "Golden Dome" missile defense system, a signature Trump initiative to shield the U.S. from all missile attacks.

The U.S. already maintains a military presence at the Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland under a longstanding defense agreement with Denmark. This has led security experts to question the necessity of annexation. "What is not clear is why Washington needs full control over Greenland to defend itself," noted Marion Messmer of Chatham House, pointing out that the U.S. could increase its troop presence under the existing framework without challenging Danish sovereignty.

The proposal faces significant political and practical hurdles. Opinion polls consistently show Greenlanders strongly oppose U.S. control and largely support eventual independence from Denmark. An American annexation would likely provoke a severe crisis within NATO, potentially fracturing the alliance.

As the administration continues to press the issue, the debate centers on whether the pursuit of Greenland represents a genuine strategic calculation for Arctic dominance or a disruptive geopolitical gambit with profound consequences for international alliances.