In recent weeks, untold numbers of ordinary Iranians have taken to the streets of their towns and cities to protest the repression and incompetent economic management of the country’s ruling theocratic regime. The regime itself appears intent on slaughtering its way to survival, murdering thousands of ordinary Iranians in what has become one of the bloodiest domestic crackdowns the world has seen in decades. Supposed moderates have closed ranks behind the regime, and cracks have yet to appear in the regime itself or among security services like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). While its immediate fate remains uncertain, the regime’s long-term prognosis appears terminal: too much popular discontent with a regime too ideologically rigid and corrupt to face (much less solve) Iran’s severe economic problems.

Even if the Iranian people topple the present regime and replace it with a more liberal and democratic one that reflects the actual aspirations of the Iranian people, that new government may not see eye to eye with the United States when it comes to regional and global politics. But it would lack the current regime’s ideological zealotry and would probably not maintain Iranian support for terrorist and militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis that sow chaos and destruction across the Middle East and the rest of the world. 

For his part, President Trump threatened military action against Iran if it continues its crackdown — though it’s not clear what the use of force would actually achieve. Destroying some regime security services facilities — say, a few IRGC barracks — probably would not do much to stop the regime’s current killing spree; this is, after all, an existential question for the regime from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on down. Moreover, an American-led air campaign seems just as likely to disrupt protests as hamper the regime’s repression: many ordinary Iranians would understandably head for cover to avoid incoming missiles and bombs, while the regime would use such strikes to attack protestors as tools of foreign powers and pose as the defenders of Iranian sovereignty. Even if air strikes precipitated the fall of the present regime, moreover, it’s hard to believe that a new Iranian government that rose to power in the wake of American military action would prove entirely stable or legitimate even in the short run. 

Nor, for whatever it’s worth, do America’s regional partners — Israel and Egypt as well as Gulf monarchies Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia — want the United States to take military action against Iran. Most Americans agree, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll that finds some 70% of registered voters opposed to American military intervention in Iran. 

Fortunately, the United States does have smarter and potentially more effective policy options beyond the use of military force to support Iran’s protestors: cyber operations could disrupt the regime and its security services as they continue their murderous crackdown on the Iranian people, making coordination between elements of the security services more difficult and giving protestors more room for maneuver against them. It could also deny the regime the ability to censor and jam communication with the outside world, allowing Iranians to get their story out without regime interference. Functional American public diplomacy and support for civil society groups could also have proven useful in Iran today had not the Trump administration made them an early target of its lawless attack on the federal government; indeed, Trump slashed funding for initiatives intended to help dissidents and protestors circumvent internet shutdowns of the sort imposed by Iran’s regime.

It would also be useful for the United States to coordinate with its allies and partners in the European Union, bringing additional pressure to bear on the regime from governments that historically have had more avenues for engagement with Tehran. But President Trump’s insane impulse to seize Greenland by whatever means necessary has created a rift with America’s European allies that only consumes time, attention, and resources that could’ve been devoted to real problems — not just the Iranian uprising, but support for Ukraine in its ongoing fight against Russian aggression. Instead, America and its European allies find themselves in a wholly unnecessary crisis of Trump’s own making.

What’s more, the United States could offer carrots in the form of sanctions relief that could both buoy protestors and create rifts within the regime itself. Ironically enough, Trump himself has precedent here: he lifted sanctions on the new post-Assad government in Syria last year, and could make a similar pledge to do so in Iran if the regime changes there. And if Iranians were to, in fact, change their regime, it would certainly be helpful if the United States had some sort of foreign assistance agency to help any new Iranian government establish itself and take root — but with the destruction of USAID, no such agency exists.

But President Trump and his administration appear more interested in military action against Iran for its own sake, only loosely tethered at best to any political or strategic objectives — to say nothing of an actual sense of how the use of force might help achieve them. They seem to believe their earlier uses of military force — against Iran’s nuclear facilities last June, against small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, and most recently against Venezuela — have been wholly unqualified and unblemished successes, leading Trump and his administration to level military threats not only against Iran but Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland as well. 

There’s a word for this sort of overconfidence: hubris. And hubris inevitably leads to nemesis: downfall and ruination. 

Madness.

That’s the only way to describe President Trump’s obsession with seizing Greenland by whatever means necessary and no matter the cost. It’s a preoccupation that’s untethered from reality and lacks any rational justification.

Indeed, the shifting rationales offered by the Trump administration for this fixation do not add up and make zero sense.

Take the supposed national security justification for the annexation of Greenland: It’s impossible to say what the United States might gain from such a move because the United States would not gain anything from it. The U.S. military already possesses extensive access to Greenland thanks to the 1951 agreement between Washington and Copenhagen, and the Space Force maintains a base at Pituffik in the territory’s far north that helps monitor for ballistic missile attacks. Moreover, America is already committed to defending Greenland against aggression via Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. Per that provision — invoked only once in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States — an armed attack on Greenland, an autonomous and self-governing territory under Danish sovereignty, would be considered an attack on the United States itself. What’s more, the Danish government has already made crystal clear its willingness to discuss even deeper security cooperation with the United States in Greenland.

Put bluntly, there is no national security reason for the United States to annex or otherwise assume direct control over Greenland. Even if they could somehow mount a military expedition to Greenland, China and Russia could not “take over” the island without triggering Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty and provoking an American-led military response. It makes absolutely no sense for the U.S. government to idly contemplate destroying the alliance that obliges the United States to come to Greenland’s defense and tearing up a decades-old security agreement that gives the U.S. military wide-ranging access to the island in order to acquire Greenland itself, supposedly for national security purposes.

The mooted economic rationale for acquiring Greenland makes just as little sense. It’s true that Greenland possesses significant reserves of rare earth elements and other critical minerals, but it’s nowhere near the motherlode the Trump administration claims: indeed, the island’s rare earth reserves rank just below those of the United States itself. If American mining companies aren’t operating in Greenland, it’s due to a lack of interest rather than a lack of access: it’s almost certainly cost-prohibitive to mine these minerals given the ice sheet that covers the island, the remoteness of the deposits, and the near-total absence of necessary mining infrastructure. In short, it will take a long time and cost a lot of money to extract these minerals — and there are much easier prospects elsewhere.

Concern about possible Chinese attempts to corner the market for these resources does not justify an American attempt to seize Greenland itself. Such worries ought to motivate the United States to work more closely with Greenland’s own democratic government, Denmark, NATO, and the European Union to both bar Chinese investment in Greenland’s critical minerals and infrastructure, and more importantly, to invest more themselves in Greenland. (Canada and the United Kingdom hold 23 mining licenses each, the most of any one country.) Again, it makes no sense to destroy these relationships in the pursuit of presidential fantasies of territorial expansion.

So why does Trump appear dead-set on annexing Greenland, strategic and economic costs to the United States — to say nothing of America’s allies and the rest of the world — be damned?

Trump’s own ego and personal vanity appear to be a major factor, with the president telling New York Times reporters that ownership of Greenland is what he feels “is psychologically needed for success.” Annexing Greenland, in other words, will make Trump feel like a big man. He also seems to find Greenland a tempting target because — and I wish I were kidding — it looks “massive” on Mercator map projections that exaggerate the size of landmasses near the poles. 

More ominously, though, Trump’s drive to take Greenland any way he can is a logical outgrowth of his gangster-style approach to the world — and in particular his apparent desire to carve the globe up with his idol Vladimir Putin and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. Echoing Putin’s nauseating pre-war assertions that Ukraine should “bear with” the Kremlin’s brutal impending invasion, “whether you like it or don’t like it,” Trump has vowed to “do something on Greenland  whether they like it or not.”

Congress has options to stop the madness, or at least make it more onerous for the Trump administration to try and make its twisted fantasies of territorial aggrandizement real.

First, Congress can preemptively deny Trump authority to use force or subversion against Greenland. Such a move would absolutely clear that any orders Trump may give to attack, subvert, or otherwise undermine Danish sovereignty over Greenland and Greenland’s own democratic institutions would be prima facie illegal and subject to refusal by responsible military officers and intelligence officials. It would also send a signal to Denmark and other NATO allies that Congress does not approve of Trump’s ambition to seize Greenland and that it lacks democratic legitimacy in the United States itself.

Congress can also explicitly bar the use of any funds to purchase Greenland or engage in any activities meant to subvert or otherwise undermine Danish sovereignty over the island. Last year, President Trump ordered the intelligence community to increase its spying on Greenland, and the Trump administration has reportedly considered sending Greenland residents cash payments of up to $100,000 if they support secession from Denmark and annexation by the United States — efforts that would not be eligible for funding under a Congressional funding band. Again, this move would be as much about sending signals to NATO allies and giving national security professionals strong grounds to refuse illegal orders as anything else.

Senators and representatives can also travel to Greenland, Denmark, and NATO headquarters in Brussels to show solidarity with these nations and the alliance as a whole. Indeed, a nine-member delegation led by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has already left for Copenhagen to, in Coons’ words, let the Danish government know “we understand the value of the partnership we have long had with them, and in no way seek to interfere in their internal discussions about the status of Greenland.” Once again, such visits would serve notice that Trump’s proposed aggression against Greenland lacks both support and legitimacy in Congress and the United States. Or as Coons put it, “I just think it’s important for us to be heard as strongly supporting NATO and our alliance.”

This list isn’t exhaustive, but it offers Congress a place to start if we hope to stop this insanity before it proceeds any further.