Jalal Khosh-Chehre, the editorial chief of Borna News Agency wrote: Europeans are confronted with two options: accepting dominance or establishing a balance of power. This situation is exactly what Tehran currently faces in its conflict with Washington. To establish a balance of power, Europe requires necessities, one of the most vital being the existence of regional allies or partners, particularly in a critical point of the globe like the Persian Gulf. Looking back at the experiences of the past four decades, and even the experience of Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, Tehran could have hoped for Europe's “sympathy”—if not outright alignment—in reducing Washington’s pressure loop; perhaps if the relationship between Tehran and Brussels (the EU's capital) were different from what it is today.

Perhaps if the relationship between Tehran and Brussels (the EU's capital) were different from what it is today, one could imagine that the two would once again stand in a "collaborative and breakthrough alignment" against Washington’s hegemonic policy. This alignment would be significant and close to a "strategic" approach because it would form a relatively vigorous resistance against the unilateralism of the Donald Trump administration. In fact, the Trump administration’s reductionist view of Europe and its unprecedented humiliation in the "U.S. National Security Strategy Document" has highlighted the rift among Western allies more prominently than at any time since the end of the Cold War. This very development could have created an opportunity for Tehran—if those opportunities had not been squandered.

On Friday (December 5, 2025), the Trump administration, by publishing the U.S. National Security Strategy Document, demonstrated a conceptual reality not only to the international community but to the global community. In this document, which was immediately welcomed by the Kremlin, the current U.S. administration clearly expressed its intention to be a self-interested actor with minimal desire to distribute benefits among its European allies for the realization of its own interests. Therefore, the published document can be interpreted within the framework of Trump’s perceptions of Washington's hegemonic position in the current era.

These perceptions are rooted in beliefs such as: unilateral pursuit of interests through the authoritative preservation of economic and technological superiority; unchallenged military supremacy; the U.S. military’s readiness to take unilateral military action to impose its "power-based will" without needing others’ participation; and the ability to aggressively export its desired regime type under pretexts similar to what is currently happening in Venezuela. During the first year of his second term, Trump has sought to convince the international community that he is a dominant and revisionist power, labeling his long-time ally, Europe, as "crippled," and aiming to introduce a new plan for shaping the international order.

The Trump administration's policy regarding the Ukraine war and its attempts to impose peace on Kyiv based on Washington's formula is not only a disregard for Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and a devaluation of the "1994 Budapest Memorandum" but also a form of humiliating coercion towards Europe. By marginalizing Europe's role in the negotiations related to ending the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump has reduced Brussels’ standing in any changes concerning European, EU, and even NATO borders to that of a "passive observer."

In the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and with the presence and signatures of the presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation, agreed to nuclear disarmament and joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A major condition for this was that the signatory countries commit to ensuring that, in exchange for relinquishing their nuclear arsenals, the three mentioned countries would receive: respect for their independence and sovereignty within their borders; refraining from any threat or use of force against them; and the Security Council coming to their aid if any of them faced an act of aggression or threat. The Memorandum also stipulated that nuclear weapons would never be used against the three countries.

What choice does Europe have in this situation? What should it do in the future? Is it necessary to quickly consider establishing a "balance of power"? Or to yield to a "self-preserving alignment" with Washington? What consequences could be considered for each of these two options? The four-way meeting between French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Volodymyr Zelensky in Downing Street (Sunday, December 7) was one of the latest attempts by Europeans not only to influence Trump's imposed approach to ending the war in Ukraine but also an image of the passivity that confronts Europeans in the face of Washington's hegemonic policy. This policy does not tolerate diversity and seeks to place its own perspective above others.

Europeans are confronted with two options: accepting dominance or establishing a balance of power. This situation is exactly what Tehran currently faces in its conflict with Washington. To establish a balance of power, Europe requires necessities, one of the most vital being the existence of regional allies or partners, particularly in a critical point of the globe like the Persian Gulf. Looking back at the experiences of the past four decades, and even the experience of Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, Tehran could have hoped for Europe's "sympathy"—if not outright alignment—in reducing Washington’s pressure loop; perhaps if the relationship between Tehran and Brussels (the EU's capital) were different from what it is today.

About the Author: Jalal Khoshchehreh is the Editor-in-Chief of Borna News Agency and one of Iran’s most distinguished political journalists. With decades of experience across major Iranian media, his analyses focus on diplomacy, Middle Eastern politics, and international strategy.

End Article