Senator Chris Murphy pointed out that if the United States annexes Greenland, "NATO will be over." The senator's statement stemmed from President Trump's earlier declaration that the United States "will take action in Greenland, regardless of the wishes of the local parties."

"NATO has a legal obligation to defend Greenland, and there will inevitably be questions about whether the United States will be drawn into a confrontation with Europe, Britain, and France," Murphy emphasized. Greenland is territory of Denmark, a NATO member.

Article 5 of the NATO Charter explicitly states that an attack on any member state is considered an attack on all member states. This clause was only invoked once, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, in support of the United States.

Later, on Air Force One, President Trump said on the 11th that the United States was considering a range of measures to deal with the situation in Iran, including "some very tough options" such as military action. Trump also later said that the government was considering targeted strikes and cyberattacks against Iran.

Multi-front actions involving resource coveting and geopolitical maneuvering

The US interventions in Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran followed different paths but shared similar logic: In Venezuela, the Trump administration launched a military strike under the guise of "anti-drug operations," forcibly taking control of President Maduro and effectively controlling his oil resources. The US military seized oil tankers to block the flow of crude oil. The US Secretary of Energy declared that Venezuelan oil sales would be managed "indefinitely," with sales revenue deposited into accounts controlled by the US. Wall Street capital made advance arrangements in the bond market, earning $4 billion in a single day. Companies such as Chevron have begun to expand their operating licenses.

From a strategic perspective, Greenland is located at a key point in the Arctic. As its glaciers melt, its navigation value continues to increase. In addition, the island is rich in key raw materials such as rare earth elements, exceeding 30 million tons, making its geopolitical importance increasingly prominent.

In Iran, the United States has maintained a policy of "maximum pressure" since withdrawing from the nuclear agreement in 2018. In June 2025, it plans to launch Operation Midnight Hammer, a joint operation with Israel, to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Facing protests triggered by economic collapse at the end of 2025, Trump has repeatedly threatened military action, attempting to exert pressure through internal unrest. Both interventions aim to achieve the dual objectives of military deterrence and resource plunder, and neither has received sufficient prior authorization from Congress.

White House position: Greenland is a national security priority

The White House has positioned “controlling Greenland” as a “core national security priority.”

White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt stated that the government has not ruled out the possibility of using military force to achieve this goal—the United States already has a military base in Greenland.

In her official statement, she said, "The President and his team are evaluating a range of options to advance this key foreign policy objective, and it is clear that the use of U.S. military power remains one of the options, as is the legal authority of the Commander-in-Chief."

Late last week, Trump further escalated his rhetoric, declaring that "the United States will take action in Greenland regardless of the wishes of the parties involved," and claiming that if the United States does not intervene, the territory will be "taken over" by countries such as Russia.

Last week, Trump posted on the Truth Social Network that he questioned whether NATO would fulfill its alliance obligations when the U.S. truly needed them, but at the same time declared that "even if NATO does not fulfill its obligations, the United States will still stand by its commitment to NATO."

In a New York Times interview published later this week, President Trump admitted that the United States may need to make a difficult choice between "maintaining the integrity of the NATO alliance" and "acquiring strategic interests in Greenland."

Meanwhile, Trump told the media on the 8th of last week that as the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, "I don't need international law."

Only his personal "moral standards and will" can limit his exercise of power globally; "that's the only thing that can stop me."

When asked whether the U.S. government needs to abide by international law, Trump claimed that he would be the "arbitrator" when the U.S. is bound by international law.

Power Struggle: The Dual Controversy of Administrative Overreach and the Effectiveness of Intervention

All three interventions intensified the power struggle between the U.S. executive and legislative branches. Bipartisan lawmakers, including Rand Paul, strongly opposed the actions, pointing out that the Trump administration's actions, which bypassed Congress, violated the War Powers Act. They argued that whether it was the "regime change strike" against Venezuela or the "deterrent intervention" against Iran, the decision to go to war should be made by Congress, not the White House.

In practice, the intervention backfired: Venezuelans grew dissatisfied with the US's resource plunder, while Iran, under external pressure, showed signs of "people uniting against external forces," with Khamenei calling on the people to resist "imposed external will." The intervention of the US and Israel actually weakened the reformist forces in Iran and consolidated the foundation of the current regime.

Paul's warning about the phenomenon of "military action unifying the people of hostile countries and violating the original intention of intervention" has been evident in both places, and the behavior of Wall Street capital to profit from intervention further exposes the profit-driven nature behind the action.

Reactions from all sides: Condemnation from allies and opposition within the United States

Shortly after the U.S. military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, Katie Miller, a close ally of President Trump, posted a photo on social media of the American flag standing in Greenland with the caption "Coming Soon!" Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederic Nielsen strongly condemned Trump's attempt to take control of the territory, calling it a "serious violation of diplomatic protocol and the principle of respect."

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made it clear to Danish radio: "If the United States takes action against another NATO member state, all existing cooperation frameworks will be terminated immediately."

In the interview, Murphy further pointed out that the Trump administration's policy focus has completely deviated from the core demands of the American people. He said, "We must face up to the strategic risks and livelihood costs behind this. The president is focused on invading Greenland, interfering in the Venezuelan economy, and promoting private projects, while ignoring the real needs of the American people."

Other Democratic lawmakers also spoke out, warning that unilateral U.S. action against Greenland could trigger the collapse of the NATO alliance.

Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner stated bluntly in a Fox News Sunday interview that if Trump "takes substantive action on Greenland, it will completely destroy the foundation of NATO's alliance."

Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly wrote on the X platform that if the Trump administration attempts to seize Greenland by force, "the president's shortsightedness and incompetence far exceed most people's expectations."

He further warned: "If we were to pair this with an unqualified Secretary of Defense, it would undoubtedly constitute the most serious geopolitical strategic mistake in American history, and its negative impact would extend to the global financial and security landscape."

Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine stated on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that Congress will exercise its power to check and balance Trump if he insists on pursuing his plan to seize Greenland.

“If necessary, we will push the Senate to vote on a no-military-action order against Greenland or Denmark,” he emphasized. “This issue will receive overwhelming bipartisan support because the president’s proposal to do so would be contrary to basic diplomatic logic and national interest.”

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul also criticized the White House’s tough rhetoric on Greenland in an interview with ABC News’ “This Week” program.

Paul analyzed the issue of "the United States may attempt to acquire Greenland," saying: "Pursuing negotiations by provoking and belittling the local people and threatening to take it by force if it is not sold completely violates the basic principles of international transactions. This attitude will only completely close the space for negotiation and make potential trading partners lose their willingness to cooperate."

The Iranian Foreign Minister stated that violence surged over the weekend, with protests turning into clashes as a pretext for intervention since Trump hinted at it.

"Terrorists attacked protesters and security forces," but "the situation is currently completely under control."

Financial Perspective: Geopolitical Risks Trigger Chain Reaction in Global Assets

From the perspective of foreign exchange financial transactions, such geopolitical risk events often trigger a rise in global risk aversion, pushing up traditional safe-haven currencies such as the US dollar and Swiss franc, while suppressing currencies such as the euro and the European economy.

Trump's remarks exacerbated tensions in Greenland, which in turn boosted the prices of precious metals such as gold and silver. On Monday, Shanghai gold rose 2.57% and Shanghai silver rose 14.42% during Asian trading hours.

However, the dollar index and US Treasury yields did not show a significant reaction, suggesting that the escalation of geopolitical tensions has not yet reached a turning point. Trump is likely to back down after making his tough statements and will be subject to checks and balances from Congress and other sectors.

Traders can keep a close eye on precious metals, the US dollar index, and US Treasury yields to look for clues of escalating geopolitical tensions in advance.