Iceland has engaged in a bitter struggle with the US over Washington's plans to reduce its military presence here, leaving Iceland's airspace defenseless and its economy weakened.
For half a century, the US has maintained a strong military presence here to counter the Soviet threat.
But Iceland now needs to come to grips with the bitter reality of its strategic insignificance in a changing world.
Last week Elisabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, handed Iceland's Prime Minister David Oddsson and Foreign Minister Halldor Asgrimsson a letter from US President George W. Bush which outlined the "changes in defense considerations."
The letter confirmed the US commitment to the joint 1951 Defense Agreement, but nobody here has been fooled by the glossy language -- it quickly became clear that Washington wants to pull out its remaining four F-15 fighters, three rescue helicopters and fuel planes from Keflavik Naval Air Station at the end of the summer.
That would leave Iceland, which has no military of its own, without any air defenses. Such a unilateral decision is viewed in Reykjavik as a violation of the spirit of the Defense Agreement, which calls for consultations.
Iceland wrote back, urging Bush to reconsider, and while officials here would not comment any further, it has been reported that the tone of the letter was far from friendly.
It seems that the Icelanders are willing to play hardball, telling the Americans that if they strip Iceland of its air defenses, then they should also give up the rest of the Keflavik base, which continues to be a useful outpost for the US empire.
Valur Ingimundarson, foreign relations expert and associate professor at the University of Iceland, said the issue is fast becoming "one of the most difficult crises in US-Icelandic relations since the end of the Cold War."
There is little indication that Oddsson's view has changed since he declared two years ago: "If the Americans decide they do not want to maintain a base that serves the interests of both countries it will simply be closed down. It's as simple as that and this is not a threat ... The base cannot be smaller than it is today."
Bush may have to intervene personally to prevent the situation from getting out of hand, Ingimundarson said.
The writing has been on the wall for the US air force presence in Iceland since the collapse of the Soviet empire, observers say, but now they sense a new, harder edge to Washington's tone.
"What has changed is that the Pentagon seems to be more insistent than before on overriding Icelandic political objections to the removal of the planes," Ingimundarson said.
Iceland has also been quick to remind Washington of its firm support over the years, most recently when it backed the Iraq war despite strong disapproval among the Icelandic population.
Few in Iceland have considered the possibility of Iceland maintaining its own air defenses.
It would be costly for the small economy and the total operational cost of the Iceland Defense Force (IDF), now paid by the Americans, equals one-tenth of Iceland's public expenses.
Although Icelandic officials play down the economic consideration of the issue, the IDF has contributed considerably to the small nation's economy.
The IDF's spending totals 1.5 percent of the country's GDP, according to estimates from Icelandic Central Bank.
It is also estimated that the proposed reduction at the Keflavik base could result in the loss of half the 1,700 Icelandic jobs which are linked, directly and indirectly, to the IDF.
That would be a serious blow to the town Reykjanesbaer next to the base, where most of the Icelanders working for the IDF live.
"The people are worried and the uncertainty is worst," says Bodvar Jonsson town council chairman of Reykjanesbaer.
Apart from the direct job losses that could follow a reduction at the base, Jonsson estimates that close to a quarter of revenues in the town's service sector are derived from the US presence.
"The best result, from both the economic and defense perspective, would be that things remain unchanged," Jonsson says.
"We trust the government to hold its ground and ensure the country's defense," he said.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS