Defence and security have been among the most politically sensitive and polarising issues in Icelandic public debate since Iceland became a republic in 1944. These matters were not absent from political discussion. On the contrary, they were frequently addressed, often intensely so. What was lacking, however, was sustained space for professional, legal, and strategic analysis. That situation has changed markedly over a relatively short period, both within the government, the private sector and among the public.
Normalisation of Debate
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, renewed great power competition, and growing tensions in the Arctic and North Atlantic have fundamentally altered the strategic landscape. For Iceland, whose security rests on alliances, international law, and close cooperation with like-minded states, these changes have been both clarifying and catalytic.
Profound shifts in the international security environment have normalised the discussion of defence and security in Icelandic politics. Questions of deterrence, allied defence, and strategic vulnerability can today be addressed openly and pragmatically, without being immediately subsumed by ideological confrontation. At the same time Iceland is actively strengthening its role in transatlantic security while continuing to rely on allied armed forces.
The GIUK Gap
Geography remains central to Iceland’s strategic relevance. Situated in the middle of the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, Iceland occupies a key position along a maritime corridor of lasting importance for monitoring naval and submarine movements between the Arctic and the Atlantic. As Russia has expanded its military activity in the High North the GIUK gap has once again become a focal point of allied security planning. Iceland’s proximity to critical transatlantic communication cables and other essential infrastructure further heightens its relevance, particularly in an era characterised by hybrid threats and concern over the vulnerability of civilian systems.
Alliance Commitments
Iceland is a founding member of NATO and has maintained a close bilateral defence relationship with the United States for more than eight decades, anchored in the Defence Agreement of 1951 and its subsequent amendments. During the Cold War, Keflavík Air Base served as a key hub for allied anti-submarine warfare and air defence. Although the withdrawal of the permanent United States military presence in 2006 created a period of operational and political uncertainty, the strategic rationale for cooperation never disappeared. In recent years, regular allied deployments, exercises, and sustained operational engagement have effectively restored Iceland’s role as a central node in North Atlantic and Arctic security.
Security Governance
What distinguishes the current period is not a fundamental reorientation of Icelandic security, but the degree to which defence and security are now treated as ordinary, legitimate subjects of governance. Iceland has expanded host nation support, increased participation in allied exercises, and strengthened its focus on airspace surveillance, maritime security, and situational awareness. Particular emphasis has been placed on resilience, including the protection of critical infrastructure and preparedness against hybrid threats such as cyber operations and disinformation.
These developments do not signal a departure from Iceland’s long-standing decision to remain without a standing military. Iceland has no armed forces and no intention, for now, of establishing them. Instead, civilian security institutions, most notably the Coast Guard and the police, perform a range of tasks that in many other states fall within the remit of the military. This reflects deliberate institutional adaptation to a changing threat environment, rather than strategic neglect or avoidance. This, however, also raises questions regarding the principle of distinction in international law, the core of which is the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants, as well as between civilian objects and military objectives.
Arctic Politics
Recent statements by the president of the United States concerning Greenland further underline renewed great power interest in the Arctic and the North Atlantic. Iceland’s response has been consistent and principled. Stability in the region depends on respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law, as well as close coordination among allies. For small states in strategically exposed positions, these principles are not abstract preferences but vital necessities.
Against this background, a narrative has emerged in parts of foreign commentary portraying Iceland as strategically naive or vulnerable to undue Chinese influence, sometimes even as a potential Trojan horse within the transatlantic alliance. These claims rely heavily on speculative assumptions and selective data. They obscure both the limited scale of Iceland’s economic engagement with China and the depth of its legal, institutional, and operational integration within Western security structures. This, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to the underlying intentions and analytical premises driving such descriptions.
A Fundamental Reorientation
Portraying Iceland as strategically adrift or susceptible to covert influence is therefore not merely inaccurate. It reflects a failure to engage seriously with Iceland’s policy choices, institutional capacities, and alliance behaviour. Iceland is a small state, but it is not an unanchored one. Its security policy is shaped by geography and a clear-eyed assessment of both its limitations and its responsibilities.
What has taken place in Iceland in the field of security and defence is nothing short of a fundamental reorientation. Defence is no longer treated as an abstract question of identity in public debate, but as a matter of concrete policy, legal responsibility, and alliance management. Analyses that continue to portray Iceland as unanchored fail not because they are controversial, but because they are utterly wrong.
Bjarni Már Magnússon is an Icelandic lawyer with expertise in international law. He was Dean of the Faculty of Law at Bifröst University.
