From Greenland to Israel: What America should expect from allies

At first, it seemed as if it was just one more example of President Donald Trump trolling his critics. When, following his re-election in 2024, the president revived the idea of the United States acquiring Greenland by one means or another, most of his supporters probably didn’t think he was all that serious about it.

But in recent weeks, as his demands that Denmark sell the Arctic land mass escalated, it became clear that he wasn’t kidding. His threats that America might punish NATO allies with tariffs if they didn’t go along with the scheme or that the United States might even take Greenland by force have turned the question of the ownership of one of the least green places on earth into a foreign-policy crisis.

Rather than just a function of what critics consider his megalomania and instinctive authoritarianism, control of Greenland is an important issue that requires serious examination. More than that, the discussion raises serious questions about not just how to value allies but what the United States has a right to expect from them. This applies not just to U.S. relations with NATO but to what America can expect from Israel, as well as what, in return, Jerusalem should expect from Washington. Meanwhile, NATO countries are wringing their hands and bewailing what they consider to be Trump’s bad behavior.

Bad optics, important question

The spectacle of Trump and other administration officials bullying little Denmark has gone over badly abroad. And for Trump’s domestic critics, who are already acting as if his enforcement of immigration laws marks the end of democracy, if not Western civilization itself, outrage about his Greenland policy is just one more reason for them to view him with disgust.

It may be difficult to look beyond the bad optics of picking on the Danes or the question of whether a dispute about Greenland is worth risking the possible destruction of the NATO alliance. But it turns out that Trump’s concerns about the strategic importance of the massive ice-covered island are not frivolous. Nor is it outrageous for him to think that leaving it in the hands of the Danes while the United States is obliged to pay for its defense, as well as the rest of the West, is unfair.

That was the upshot of one of a flurry of New York Times articles aimed at skewering Trump’s position. In it, the liberal newspaper conceded that in an era of cyber warfare and development of the Arctic driven by sophisticated technology and concerns about the future of the ice that covers most of it, Greenland really is vital to the security of the West.

"Israel is an ally that is prepared to defend itself. The NATO nations have been relative freeloaders for many decades."

Despite the obsessive concerns of environmentalists about the polar icecaps, the world hasn’t paid much attention to the fact that the Arctic has become the scene of a new “great game” rivalry between the United States and its allies on the one hand and the Chinese and the Russians on the other. The article also claimed that Trump had an “exit ramp” he could easily take to end the controversy. Since an existing treaty gives America the right to build bases there, Washington could just go ahead and do so with Denmark’s blessing, and spare Europe and the world from further tensions.

Yet as the piece makes clear, although Denmark and other NATO nations that have spent the last weeks huffing and puffing about Trump’s bad manners in raising the question of Greenland’s future, these countries have no intention of contributing to dealing with what even the Times agrees is the danger posed by Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic.

Benefiting from America and complaining about it

In other words, they expect the United States to do in Greenland what it has essentially done for the rest of Europe since 1945: pay for its security and meekly accept that the beneficiaries of its largesse get to complain about Americans pushing them around.

Much of the coverage of the controversy centers on some of the less than flattering aspects of Trump’s bluster about a country that is more ice than green, such as the report that he sent a text to Norway’s prime minister, saying since he had been denied the Nobel Peace Prize (which is awarded by the Oslo-based Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian government), he doesn’t feel obligated to play nice with Europe.

But when placed in the context of the necessity for the West to invest heavily in security in Greenland and the long record of prosperous NATO countries letting the American taxpayers pay the bill for their defense, Trump’s demand seems less unreasonable.

So, if the Times and the other Trump critics are going to wax lyrical about the way Trump’s rhetoric and potential actions could break up the NATO alliance, it might be a good time to ask what should be expected from America’s allies, other than smoldering contempt for the president.

‘America First’ model ally

That’s why the Greenland controversy sheds insight on why the U.S.-Israel alliance —despite the carping about it from those who hate the Jewish state and resent the $3 billion in aid it receives from Washington—is actually far more equitable in many ways than the much-lauded NATO alliance.

The price tag for U.S. military assistance to Israel does remain high. And yet, to put it in perspective, it is a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars that Washington has sent to Ukraine in the last four years. Israel would be wise to reduce and eventually phase out the aid completely since it is a political liability to the Jewish state and its supporters.

But what those Israel-bashers who moan about billions going to Israel that they think should be spent at home forget is that almost all of the money is spent in the United States, not overseas. In that sense, it’s as much an aid program for U.S. arms manufacturers and their employees as is for the Jewish state.

It is money well spent in terms of the advantages it brings. It enables Israel to purchase weapons and ammunition that are vitally needed to maintain its strategic advantage over its foes and to fight long wars such as the battles against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Israel’s victories in those battles also benefit America, which is the ultimate target of its Islamist foes. And the arms that Israel buys in the United States are then improved by Israel’s technological prowess. The joint projects the two countries have worked on have not only enabled our nation to have a viable missile-defense program, but the intelligence shared by Israel with Washington offers invaluable advantages.

More than that, Israel is an ally that is prepared to defend itself. It just needs help procuring the weapons it requires to do so.

By contrast, the NATO nations have been relative freeloaders for many decades, sitting back and letting Americans pay for their defense, and even stationing troops and bases in Europe to ensure that it remains free. Rich Western European countries like Denmark have enjoyed the umbrella of U.S. security since World War II and have only occasionally reciprocated the assistance by actions that show they are ready to share the burden.

While, thanks to Trump’s advocacy on the issue, many NATO allies are now paying for more of their defense, the current situation remains one in which America is still largely subsidizing European defense, despite heightened regional concerns because of Russian aggression against Ukraine. And rather than that assistance doled out in legislation labeled as “aid,” much of what U.S. taxpayers give to Europe is hidden in the U.S. defense budget, making it harder to see just how indebted these nations are to their generosity.

By contrast, and as Vice President JD Vance said in a speech last year, Israel is the ideal American ally from an “America First” perspective. He spoke of how it is “on a per capita basis one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced countries in the world.” That is beneficial to the United States because, as he noted, it gave America “missile-defense parity” with its foes.

More than that, he said, it was fair to ask what America should want from its allies.

“Do we want clients who depend on us, who can’t do anything without us? Or do we want real allies who can actually advance their interests on their own with America playing a leadership role,” Vance said. As he made clear, Israel fits his definition of “real allies,” while the NATO countries do not.

The future of NATO

That’s why all the European posturing about divorcing from NATO and the United States because of the dispute over Greenland is just hot air. If the countries involved wanted to pay for their own defense, they could do so. However, it’s painfully obvious that most of them consider even minimal contributions to the effort to deter Russia and China to be unreasonably burdensome. What they want from America is for it to keep quiet and continue to fork over funds for their security, including the massive investment needed in Greenland.

Trump thinks that’s not fair. And he’s not wrong to view it that way.

Does America require sovereignty over Greenland to ensure that the Arctic doesn’t become a Russian or Chinese lake? Not necessarily. But if the Europeans aren’t going to pay their fair share for defending it, then it’s not crazy for Trump to say that Denmark should just sell it.

Prior American governments have sought to purchase it, going back to the postwar Truman administration and even to the 1860s (when Secretary of State William Seward vainly sought to buy it, but then settled for getting Russia to sell Alaska). So, depicting the request as just vintage Trumpian insanity is misleading, even if the manner in which the president has pursued it is hard to defend. On the flip side, if he wasn’t blustering and making threats about Greenland, would the Europeans even listen to his arguments?

Regardless of how this matter is resolved, the dustup over Greenland should serve as the starting point for a serious discussion about what alliances mean in the 21st century. NATO served a vital purpose during the Cold War. But as the debate about Greenland and the Europeans’ reluctance to either support its development as a security hub or to sell it to the Americans illustrates, it increasingly seems more a tribute to the past than an essential element of U.S. security in 2026. By contrast, Israel, which does not have the advantage of being a member of NATO—and all the rights and privileges that go with it—is more important to U.S. defense than ever.

© JNS