Does the IS have some right to Greenland?

1. What the sources actually cover — no Islamic State claim to Greenland

The available reporting documents U.S. presidential talk and policy moves regarding Greenland and mentions the Islamic State only in a separate context—reports that the U.S. moved detainees from Syria to Iraq—not as an actor claiming territory in the Arctic ^[1]. None of the provided sources advance any argument that the Islamic State has historical, legal, or de facto grounds to assert rights over Greenland, so there is no evidentiary basis in this record to treat the Islamic State as a claimant ^[1].

2. If the question intended “US”: Washington’s asserted interests, not a settled legal right

Multiple sources document renewed U.S. efforts to acquire influence or control over Greenland—whether through purchase, a compact of free association, or stronger basing arrangements—with American officials and commentators arguing strategic, resource, and military rationales ^{[5] [2] [6]}. Those policy choices reflect asserted interests and options, not an established legal entitlement under international law to annex or appropriate Greenland without consent ^{[6] [4]}.

3. The strong presumption of Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination

Historic and contemporary sources underscore Denmark’s longstanding claim and administration of Greenland and the principle that changes to territorial title require the free consent of the people concerned; Chatham House and legal commentators note Denmark’s unimpeachable historical claim and stress the UN-era commitments to self-determination ^{[4] [7]}. Legal scholars cited in European reporting warn that ceding Greenland without Greenlandic popular support would violate the UN Charter and the right of self-determination ^[3].

4. Practical and political constraints on any outside claim

Even among allies and NATO partners, the idea of one state seizing or buying Greenland provokes alarm: European leaders insisted that Greenland’s status is for Denmark and Greenland to decide and emphasized upholding sovereignty and inviolability of borders ^[2]. Analysts argue existing defense arrangements—such as the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Defense of Greenland Agreement—already give Washington substantial basing rights without altering sovereignty, suggesting diplomacy and treaties are the realistic route, not unilateral entitlement ^[6].

5. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas in the reporting

Some commentary frames aggressive U.S. proposals as a novel model of “absorption” or coercive diplomacy, suggesting a political agenda to expand influence under security or resource pretexts ^[5]. Proponents in U.S. policy circles advance national-security and resource arguments for tighter control ^[5], while critics and NATO partners portray such moves as precedent-setting and legally dubious, implying the U.S. political agenda risks isolating allies ^{[2] [4]}.

6. Direct answer and limits of available evidence

Directly: the Islamic State (IS) has no documented claim or right to Greenland in the material provided; the discussion in the sources centers on U.S. interest and Danish/Greenlandic sovereignty ^{[1] [2]}. If the intended subject was the United States, the sources show strong American interest and multiple policy options but do not support a legal “right” for the U.S. to Greenland absent Danish and Greenlandic consent and compliance with international law protecting territorial integrity and self-determination ^{[3] [4] [6]}. The reporting does not contain evidence that international law or state practice recognizes any entitlement in favor of the Islamic State, nor does it document any lawful mechanism by which a third party may unilaterally transfer Greenland’s sovereignty against the will of its people ^{[3] [4]}.