Nato faces rift over US plan to remove jets from Iceland

Nato is facing a new rift after a threat by Washington to withdraw US fighter jets from Iceland as part of a shake-up of American military forces in Europe.

So concerned are the Icelanders about US intentions to remove four F-15s that they have asked the Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, to intervene in their support. The row is provoking new tension in the alliance as it tries to repair the divisions which opened up over Iraq, when France, Germany and Belgium opposed the US-led military action.

Iceland has no army, but its territory was of enormous strategic significance during the Cold War, making it a much valued member of the transatlantic alliance.

The rethink of US priorities after the 11 September terror attacks has called into question Washington's willingness to keep the small number of jets, plus rescue helicopters and refuelling planes, which Iceland sees as a guarantee of its security and of US commitment.

To make matters worse Reykjavik was informed of the politically sensitive decision in May on the eve of parliamentary elections in which the outgoing Prime Minister, David Oddsson, was returned with a sharply reduced majority. Mr Oddsson has hinted that, if the US does remove the jets, America will have to end its military presence in Iceland.

That would not be palatable to the Pentagon which has 1,200 naval staff in the country from which it operates four P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft as part of its reconnaissance of the North Atlantic, a task it still regards as a high priority.

Officials admit there is little military reason for stationing the jets in Iceland, and that the threat after the end of the Cold War no longer justifies it. But diplomats say the decision will have important political implications and could damage America's relations with a country which has been a loyal supporter.

"It is hard to argue on an operational basis that these jets are needed," one Nato source said.

"But defence, in the round, is also about offering reassurance and about maintaining alliances and keeping friendships."

Lord Robertson made representations at a senior level in Washington to try to defuse the row, and succeeded in winning a postponement of any announcement.

The source said: "His intervention was requested by the Icelandics. He's not allowed to be judgemental in a situation like this: if a Nato member state requires the secretary general to intervene with another Nato member he's dutybound to do so. The argument came down to one of, 'If you take away the fighter jets, what is there in it for Iceland'."

In 1994, the US withdrew eight fighters from Iceland but agreed to keep four permanently at the Keflavik naval air station, near Reykjavik.

The deal was to be renegotiated in 2001 but talks were postponed as the US contemplated a broader review of its forces in the aftermath of 11 September. The idea of scaling down the presence in Iceland is only a small part of the wide US military reorganisation.

The Pentagon is particularly keen to reduce its military presence in Germany in favour of smaller, more flexible and quickly deployable forces that might be based in Eastern European nations that have joined the alliance, including Bulgaria, Romania and other former Soviet bloc countries.