At a crossroads

Summary of a roundtable discussion held on 26 November 2025.

Varða, in cooperation with MP Þórdís Kolbrún R. Gylfadóttir, convened a roundtable discussion on Iceland's security and defence policy, held in connection with the visit of Charlie Edwards of the British think tank IISS, who had conducted an independent analysis of the policy at Varða's request. The meeting was attended by leaders from politics, business, academia and the third sector. Discussions were held under the Chatham House Rule, and this summary reflects shared themes and conclusions without attributing views to individuals or institutions.

A lack of shared and public risk assessment

One of the clearest calls to emerge from the discussion concerned the lack of regular, coordinated and public risk assessment. Without such a common foundation, policymaking inevitably becomes fragmented and uncoordinated. Participants noted that ministries, agencies and companies work diligently within their own fields, but that an overall picture that could support investment and a clear division of responsibility is missing.

Risk assessment was discussed not merely as a technical tool but as a societal instrument for creating shared understanding. There was a will for such an assessment to be made, at least in part, public and used to strengthen democratic debate and trust. At the same time, it was noted that the public administration lacks the processes and legal framework to turn analysis into clear decisions and implementation, particularly in the grey zones where hybrid threats emerge.

Companies on the front line of hybrid threats

The discussions clearly highlighted that companies play a key role in the country's security. Energy, transport, utility and telecommunications infrastructure is largely in the hands of companies, which are the first to face disruptions, harassment and hybrid threats. Although these operations are privately run, the consequences are societal when systems are disrupted.

Participants emphasised that this situation calls for a better flow of information and more formalised cooperation between the public sector and companies. Companies need guidance, predictability and political recognition that their preparedness is an integral part of the nation's resilience.

A changed reality calls for a new culture and identity

It emerged in the discussions that the Icelandic conversation on security has long been shaped by the experience of natural hazards, where response and flexibility have been key. This tradition is a strength, but it does not fully capture the security reality Iceland faces today, where man-made threats such as infrastructure disruptions, cyber attacks and information disorder have become the main challenges. The conversation suggested, however, that culture and identity can change rapidly.

In that context, particular reference was made to Sweden and Finland, which turned away from centuries-old traditions of neutrality with their rapid accession to NATO. It was also noted that the Icelandic public has been little involved in the conversation about the new security reality, and that a shared vision requires the nation to understand what threats exist and why they must be addressed.

Iceland's international role: responsibility and opportunity in technology and infrastructure

Discussions of the international context reflected Iceland's changed position, with allies making growing demands for a genuine contribution to collective security. Participants noted that Iceland's opportunities lie less in military capability and more in digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, innovation, host-nation support and its distinctive position in the North Atlantic.

There was a will to move from being a recipient in security cooperation to becoming a more active and policy-shaping participant. By taking the initiative in areas such as cybersecurity and the use of digital infrastructure, innovation and technology, Iceland can contribute genuine capability that strengthens the Alliance as a whole.

Closing remarks

The roundtable discussions show that Iceland stands at a crossroads. The risk lies in continuing without clear risk assessments and without engaging the private sector and the public as genuine partners. Against this stand clear opportunities: short lines of communication, a flexible system of government, strong infrastructure and societal trust.

With a focused approach and clear prioritisation, Iceland can strengthen its societal resilience and become a reliable and active partner in a changed security environment.