Скачать или смотреть Trump’s Greenland Obsession: The Arctic Move That Shakes NATO | Col. Douglas Macgregor

An Arctic land grab and a Gulf war scare are colliding into one chaotic, high-stakes week—raising a single, terrifying question: is Washington stumbling into a two-front crisis by choice, or by pressure?

On one side is Greenland, suddenly treated like a $700-billion prize in a geopolitical poker game. The claim: strategic security, missile defense, and Arctic dominance. The counter-claim: the U.S. already has access through existing agreements, meaning an outright takeover would be less a necessity than a rupture—one that could torch alliance trust and accelerate NATO’s slow fracture into open panic. European capitals, already strained by years of war fatigue and economic strain, see Greenland as the moment the unthinkable becomes policy: allies treated like assets, treaties treated like negotiable paper, and “friendship” reduced to tribute.

On the other side is Iran, where the war rhetoric has moved from deterrence to decapitation. The language is blunt—kill political leaders, kill military leaders, crush infrastructure, topple the regime. Analysts warn the strike plan wasn’t abandoned; it was postponed, reportedly because the U.S. didn’t have enough combat power positioned to absorb the worst-case retaliation. That’s why the build-up matters: a carrier group steaming toward the Gulf, fighter aircraft redeployments, air defense moves, and heightened readiness. Translation: the “danger window” is still open.

Iran’s warning is even sharper. If the attack threatens regime survival—if leaders become targets—Tehran’s calculus shifts from restraint to maximum pain. U.S. bases across the region could be struck, and unlike Israel’s layered defenses, scattered American installations may not have the same protection against advanced missiles. That is the nightmare trigger: American casualties from a war initiated by Washington, followed by political backlash at home and a rapid escalation spiral abroad.

This is where domestic politics detonates into foreign policy. Trump built his brand on avoiding new wars. A direct strike that invites retaliation could fracture his base—especially if the war looks optional, or driven by elite pressure rather than clear U.S. national interest. Meanwhile, Greenland adds gasoline: if America threatens tariffs and coercion against allies while building toward a Gulf strike, the world sees a superpower acting unconstrained—power without brakes.

In this combustible mix, one misread signal could set the region on fire: a carrier arrival, a “bigger” target set, a leadership strike, or an Iranian decision to hit bases hard. Greenland may look like the headline—but the Gulf could be the blast.