WI: USA performs a banana-republic regime-change... in Iceland?

[The Militant Doberman]

Reading the Wikipedia page on the UK-Iceland Cod Wars (a.k.a.: the war of words over territorial waters and fishing rights) it mentioned that at one point Iceland threatened to leave N.A.T.O. unless the U.K. concedes to Iceland’s demands. Since Iceland’s territory was vital to monitoring Soviet submarines in the North Atlantic the British government backed down.

But what if the Cod Wars weren’t resolved and Iceland made good on its threat? And what if Washington, deciding that having a blind-spot in a vital naval arena is unacceptable, sends troops to Reykjavik in order to “restore the democratic order” by overthrowing the siting government? You know, just like it was done in South America at the time.

What would Iceland’s relationship with USA be like in such a world? How would it impact future Icelandic politics? How would the Eastern Block respond? How would Western Europe react? Would Iceland eventually became a US protectorate like Puerto Rico?

 

[The Militant Doberman]

Bump?

 

[EternalCynic]

The US will recognize it's a bluff and tell the Brits to stand down, and let the Icelanders know of this.

 

[Devvy]

Actually NATO has been a controversial topic in Iceland for decades - there have been marches and protests by Icelanders to get Iceland to withdraw from NATO (and the original vote to join NATO was a close thing). What need does Iceland have for NATO - it's a desolate rock in the Atlantic whose sole military benefit is stopping the other side from breaching a perimeter stealthily. And I say that as a quasi-Icelander.

The Brits aren't stupid (no further jokes on this topic please ) - we'd recognise that Iceland might leave, and the UK will want to retain NATO in Iceland for holding the defensive perimeter across the north Atlantic. The UK will back down as Iceland gives the threat, bluffing or not, as the defensive risks are great versus some extra fish. What might happen, is this reopens a significant debate in Iceland over NATO despite the UK withdrawing from the Icelandic fishing areas, and a year later Iceland withdraws from NATO.

I can't see the US instituting regime change (why bother - the US just wants to retain a military base there?) - Iceland isn't some banana republic no matter how small it is. It's the site of the world's oldest parliament, and is a well defined country with a culture, language and people. What will more likely happen, is that Iceland recognises it has no way of forcing the US off the island given that there are probably (depending on the exact year this happens) more US armed forces present than the entire Icelandic male population. Iceland makes clear it has left NATO, and has no further obligations, but allows NATO (ie. the US) to retain Keflavik Air Force Base on the basis it can also use the runways for civilian air operations (ie. what has become Iceland's international airport) as long as it doesn't interfere with military matters. It's a slightly uncomfortable arrangement, but it's suitable for both sides and is the best that Iceland can achieve until the US decides it doesn't need the base any more (post Cold War).

 

[Barry Bull]

Actually NATO has been a controversial topic in Iceland for decades - there have been marches and protests by Icelanders to get Iceland to withdraw from NATO (and the original vote to join NATO was a close thing). What need does Iceland have for NATO - it's a desolate rock in the Atlantic whose sole military benefit is stopping the other side from breaching a perimeter stealthily. And I say that as a quasi-Icelander.

The Brits aren't stupid (no further jokes on this topic please ) - we'd recognise that Iceland might leave, and the UK will want to retain NATO in Iceland for holding the defensive perimeter across the north Atlantic. The UK will back down as Iceland gives the threat, bluffing or not, as the defensive risks are great versus some extra fish. What might happen, is this reopens a significant debate in Iceland over NATO despite the UK withdrawing from the Icelandic fishing areas, and a year later Iceland withdraws from NATO.

I can't see the US instituting regime change (why bother - the US just wants to retain a military base there?) - Iceland isn't some banana republic no matter how small it is. It's the site of the world's oldest parliament, and is a well defined country with a culture, language and people. What will more likely happen, is that Iceland recognises it has no way of forcing the US off the island given that there are probably (depending on the exact year this happens) more US armed forces present than the entire Icelandic male population. Iceland makes clear it has left NATO, and has no further obligations, but allows NATO (ie. the US) to retain Keflavik Air Force Base on the basis it can also use the runways for civilian air operations (ie. what has become Iceland's international airport) as long as it doesn't interfere with military matters. It's a slightly uncomfortable arrangement, but it's suitable for both sides and is the best that Iceland can achieve until the US decides it doesn't need the base any more (post Cold War).

Iceland, if occupied, is a brilliant location for Soviet air force and naval aviation to interdict NATO SLOC. It would also reduce warning time for Soviet nuclear attacks against North America. So a deal allowing continuous use of the Airbase while denialing any Soviet attempt at Iceland (peaceful or forceful) would probably acceptable to USA.

 

[Hvalrossen]

Iceland was a legitimate democracy, so the US may lose credibility.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Iceland was a legitimate democracy, so the US may lose credibility.

So was Chile, Árbenz-era Guatemala, and other countries the US has supported "regime change".

 

[Devvy]

The problem here is that if the US does regime change in Western Europe, it threatens the underlying point in NATO. What’s the point in collective security against the Soviets changing your regime if the US will do it from the other side?

As I said, I can’t see the US doing it for the above reasons (and it would be happy as long as it keeps the base anyway), and I can’t see the UK doing anything to threaten that.

Iceland just wants to be left in peace, trading energy, fish, aluminium, and eclectic pop stars internationally.

 

[BigBlueBox]

So was Chile, Árbenz-era Guatemala, and other countries the US has supported "regime change".

But the US didn't send the Marines to march into the capital and arrest the government. It simply encouraged elements of those country's own armed forces to overthrow their own government. Plausible deniability is very important.