US "invasion" of Greenland could cause a major disaster: lawmakers say it could ignite a civil war within NATO.
2026-01-19 09:31:55
On the international geopolitical stage, the relationship between the United States and its NATO allies often resonates globally. Recently, a senior Republican congressman issued a stern warning, pointing out that if the United States were to use military force to invade Greenland, it would directly challenge NATO's core principles and could even lead to the alliance's disintegration. This view not only reflects domestic concerns about the president's foreign policy but also highlights the potential conflict under the guise of resource competition and national security.
Republican Representative Michael McCaul, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, expressed strong concern about the president’s actions on Greenland in a televised interview on Sunday (January 18).
He emphasized that Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has irreplaceable strategic value, a fact recognized as early as the presidencies of several former presidents.
However, McCaul points out that the United States already has full military access to Greenland through existing treaties, which is sufficient to deal with any potential threats without resorting to invasion.
He explained in detail that while purchasing Greenland might be a viable diplomatic option for the president, military intervention would fundamentally undermine the core spirit of NATO's Article 5. This article stipulates that an attack on one NATO member state is considered an attack on all members; therefore, a US invasion of Greenland would be tantamount to waging war against NATO as a whole, potentially destroying this military alliance founded during the Cold War.
McCall further explained that if the United States wants to strengthen its military presence in Greenland, it can increase deployments through negotiation rather than by forcibly occupying it, especially since neither Denmark nor Greenland is willing to sell it at present. Such a risky move would have unforeseen consequences.
Greenland, located within the Arctic Circle, possesses abundant mineral resources and a unique geographical location, making it a focal point of great power rivalry. In the interview, McCaul acknowledged that the island is crucial to U.S. defense, effectively monitoring Arctic shipping routes and potential missile threats.
However, he repeatedly emphasized that the existing Meidan Treaty already grants the United States full military use rights, including the right to establish and expand bases on the island. This means that the United States can achieve its goal of protecting national interests without resorting to force.
McCaul believes that the president's tariff measures and military threats are not only aimed at European allies but could also further exacerbate internal conflicts. He suggests that if the goal is to enhance military influence, diplomatic negotiations should be prioritized over unilateral actions, which would not only maintain alliance stability but also avoid unnecessary waste of resources and international isolation.
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, on the same program, agreed with McCaul's views and further accused the president of using national security as a pretext to cover up his true motives.
He pointed out that the Danish and Greenlandic authorities have made it clear that the United States can take all necessary measures to ensure the security of its homeland and NATO, including expanding existing military bases.
This shows that the so-called "security needs" are not the essence of the problem. Van Hollen bluntly stated that this is essentially a "land grab," with the president aiming to seize Greenland's mineral and natural resources, similar to his true purpose in intervening in Venezuelan affairs, rather than to curb the influx of drugs or other overt reasons.
He emphasized that such behavior not only damages the United States' credibility but could also trigger a strong backlash from allies, further weakening NATO's cohesion.
In response to the president's potential military action, Van Hollen called on Congress to take decisive action, including invoking the War Powers Resolution to limit the president's power. He detailed that Congress could prevent the use of force against Greenland by cutting off relevant military funding or by passing a resolution directly.
However, he also acknowledged that divisions exist within the Republican Party, with many members often backing down in crucial votes, as recently demonstrated on the Venezuela issue. He criticized these colleagues for giving the president “blank checks” and called on them to stop this leniency in order to maintain constitutional balance.
Van Hollen's views highlight the tension in the separation of powers in the United States. In foreign policy, the oversight role of Congress is crucial, but its actual implementation is often influenced by partisan interests.
In the interview, Van Hollen also extended the discussion to Iran, criticizing the president's threats of military intervention amid the ongoing protests in the country. The regime has reportedly caused the deaths of thousands of protesters, but Van Hollen argues that the United States should not use military force to forcibly push for democratic change. He advocates supporting the protesters through diplomatic and economic means, rather than implying military aid to overthrow the regime. This stance reflects the Democratic Party's overall dissatisfaction with the president's foreign policy style, believing his belligerent tendencies could drag the United States into more unnecessary conflicts.
In conclusion, McCaul and Van Hollen's warnings reveal a deep contradiction in US foreign policy: the conflict between resource competition and alliance stability. A military invasion of Greenland would not only trigger a direct confrontation with NATO but could also reshape the global security landscape. Faced with this potential crisis, US policymakers must carefully weigh their options and prioritize diplomatic means to safeguard long-term international interests.
Trump announced over the weekend that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom, starting February 1, until the United States is authorized to purchase Greenland. Major EU countries on Sunday denounced the tariff threat against their European allies as "blackmail," and France proposed a series of previously unused economic retaliatory measures in response.
Market risk aversion has intensified significantly, causing gold prices to surge in early Asian trading on Monday (January 19). Spot gold rose nearly $100 at one point, hitting a record high of $4,690 per ounce. Investors should pay attention to further news from Greenland. In the medium to long term, as long as global uncertainty does not subside significantly and central bank gold purchases continue, the bullish logic for gold remains valid. Most institutions predict that the average price or target for 2026 will be in the $4,500-$5,000 range, or even higher. However, the risk of a pullback should be noted. Once a major negative event occurs (such as a rapid compromise by allies or a hawkish shift by the Federal Reserve), a deeper pullback may occur. It is recommended to pay attention to the progress of the implementation of trade tariffs, NATO's response, and the latest statements from the Federal Reserve, as these will be key triggers determining the direction of the next wave.
At 09:30 Beijing time, spot gold was trading at $4662.16 per ounce.
Congressman McCall's Strategic Warning
Republican Representative Michael McCaul, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, expressed strong concern about the president’s actions on Greenland in a televised interview on Sunday (January 18).
He emphasized that Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has irreplaceable strategic value, a fact recognized as early as the presidencies of several former presidents.
However, McCaul points out that the United States already has full military access to Greenland through existing treaties, which is sufficient to deal with any potential threats without resorting to invasion.
He explained in detail that while purchasing Greenland might be a viable diplomatic option for the president, military intervention would fundamentally undermine the core spirit of NATO's Article 5. This article stipulates that an attack on one NATO member state is considered an attack on all members; therefore, a US invasion of Greenland would be tantamount to waging war against NATO as a whole, potentially destroying this military alliance founded during the Cold War.
McCall further explained that if the United States wants to strengthen its military presence in Greenland, it can increase deployments through negotiation rather than by forcibly occupying it, especially since neither Denmark nor Greenland is willing to sell it at present. Such a risky move would have unforeseen consequences.
Greenland's strategic significance and existing agreements
Greenland, located within the Arctic Circle, possesses abundant mineral resources and a unique geographical location, making it a focal point of great power rivalry. In the interview, McCaul acknowledged that the island is crucial to U.S. defense, effectively monitoring Arctic shipping routes and potential missile threats.
However, he repeatedly emphasized that the existing Meidan Treaty already grants the United States full military use rights, including the right to establish and expand bases on the island. This means that the United States can achieve its goal of protecting national interests without resorting to force.
McCaul believes that the president's tariff measures and military threats are not only aimed at European allies but could also further exacerbate internal conflicts. He suggests that if the goal is to enhance military influence, diplomatic negotiations should be prioritized over unilateral actions, which would not only maintain alliance stability but also avoid unnecessary waste of resources and international isolation.
Senator Van Hollen's sharp criticism
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, on the same program, agreed with McCaul's views and further accused the president of using national security as a pretext to cover up his true motives.
He pointed out that the Danish and Greenlandic authorities have made it clear that the United States can take all necessary measures to ensure the security of its homeland and NATO, including expanding existing military bases.
This shows that the so-called "security needs" are not the essence of the problem. Van Hollen bluntly stated that this is essentially a "land grab," with the president aiming to seize Greenland's mineral and natural resources, similar to his true purpose in intervening in Venezuelan affairs, rather than to curb the influx of drugs or other overt reasons.
He emphasized that such behavior not only damages the United States' credibility but could also trigger a strong backlash from allies, further weakening NATO's cohesion.
Possibilities and Challenges of Congressional Intervention
In response to the president's potential military action, Van Hollen called on Congress to take decisive action, including invoking the War Powers Resolution to limit the president's power. He detailed that Congress could prevent the use of force against Greenland by cutting off relevant military funding or by passing a resolution directly.
However, he also acknowledged that divisions exist within the Republican Party, with many members often backing down in crucial votes, as recently demonstrated on the Venezuela issue. He criticized these colleagues for giving the president “blank checks” and called on them to stop this leniency in order to maintain constitutional balance.
Van Hollen's views highlight the tension in the separation of powers in the United States. In foreign policy, the oversight role of Congress is crucial, but its actual implementation is often influenced by partisan interests.
Extended concerns about the situation in Iran
In the interview, Van Hollen also extended the discussion to Iran, criticizing the president's threats of military intervention amid the ongoing protests in the country. The regime has reportedly caused the deaths of thousands of protesters, but Van Hollen argues that the United States should not use military force to forcibly push for democratic change. He advocates supporting the protesters through diplomatic and economic means, rather than implying military aid to overthrow the regime. This stance reflects the Democratic Party's overall dissatisfaction with the president's foreign policy style, believing his belligerent tendencies could drag the United States into more unnecessary conflicts.
In conclusion, McCaul and Van Hollen's warnings reveal a deep contradiction in US foreign policy: the conflict between resource competition and alliance stability. A military invasion of Greenland would not only trigger a direct confrontation with NATO but could also reshape the global security landscape. Faced with this potential crisis, US policymakers must carefully weigh their options and prioritize diplomatic means to safeguard long-term international interests.
Trump announced over the weekend that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom, starting February 1, until the United States is authorized to purchase Greenland. Major EU countries on Sunday denounced the tariff threat against their European allies as "blackmail," and France proposed a series of previously unused economic retaliatory measures in response.
Market risk aversion has intensified significantly, causing gold prices to surge in early Asian trading on Monday (January 19). Spot gold rose nearly $100 at one point, hitting a record high of $4,690 per ounce. Investors should pay attention to further news from Greenland. In the medium to long term, as long as global uncertainty does not subside significantly and central bank gold purchases continue, the bullish logic for gold remains valid. Most institutions predict that the average price or target for 2026 will be in the $4,500-$5,000 range, or even higher. However, the risk of a pullback should be noted. Once a major negative event occurs (such as a rapid compromise by allies or a hawkish shift by the Federal Reserve), a deeper pullback may occur. It is recommended to pay attention to the progress of the implementation of trade tariffs, NATO's response, and the latest statements from the Federal Reserve, as these will be key triggers determining the direction of the next wave.
At 09:30 Beijing time, spot gold was trading at $4662.16 per ounce.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
