A Worthy Ally in Turbulent Times
Iceland's Foreign Minister argues that a small state's security rests not on size or military strength but on whether international law is respected and alliances hold – and that Iceland can no longer afford to be a bystander as that rules-based order comes under strain.
The security environment has changed fundamentally. Russia's war in Ukraine is the first large-scale war of conquest in Europe since 1945 and a direct challenge to the principle that no state may seize another by force. Its effects reach well beyond the front line: the Arctic and North Atlantic are again central to European security, and Iceland's location makes it a vital link in allied defence – what NATO's Deputy Chair of the Military Committee called the alliance's "eyes and ears" in the region.
Threats now reach beyond the military. Cyberattacks, sabotage of infrastructure, and disinformation are part of daily life in Europe, so security today is as much about societal resilience as about defence. Recent questioning of Greenland's status shows that challenges to sovereignty in Iceland's own neighbourhood must be taken seriously.
Iceland is adapting. Earlier this year the Althingi unanimously adopted the country's first formal defence and security policy, reflecting a cross-party consensus that Iceland must be better prepared and take more responsibility for its own security. The Minister frames Iceland as "a country without an army, but not without defences."
More partners, not fewer. NATO and the bilateral defence agreement with the United States remain cornerstones, but uncertain times call for additional pillars – hence deeper cooperation with the Nordic countries, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, and the EU. The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a welcome change for the whole region. She stresses that closer ties with neighbours do not weaken the relationship with Washington; a stronger Europe means a stronger NATO, and the goal is to reinforce every pillar rather than choose between partners.
Iceland's contribution is real without an army. It lies in geography, host-nation support, NATO's command facility and air-defence system at Keflavík, and infrastructure resilience – strengthening the Coast Guard, the cyber-security team CERT-IS, and the security of energy, communications, transport, food, and medicine. Icelanders have repeatedly shown unique strength in the face of natural disasters; that same resilience must now extend to a changed security environment.
Greater responsibility is coming. With NATO's Hague summit raising the spending target toward 5% of GDP, Iceland – long exempt from spending benchmarks because it maintains no army – is not exempt from the commitment to increase defence-related spending. Contributions have grown but still fall short of the 1.5% defence-related target, and the Minister insists such spending must be genuinely defence-related.
Her conclusion. For great powers, security is about influence and power; for a small state like Iceland, it is about ensuring rules prevail over force and having allies when it counts. Security is not a distant concern but the core of Icelandic sovereignty – and Iceland becomes a "worthy and trustworthy ally" only by contributing and standing with its partners, as it expects them to stand with Iceland.