Madrid – In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, a spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he provided a dull assessment of the current tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and the role Europe has chosen to play in this context.
Rather than a simple diplomatic exchange, his statements reveal a deeper crisis that goes beyond nuclear negotiations and challenges the notion of sovereign and autonomous European foreign policy.
Europe lost its diplomatic independence
Baqaei did not hesitate to condemn what he called the complete subordinate of the European powers to US control. He criticised France, Germany and the UK and accused them of acting as a policy for us and Israel, following the “Trump Order” and adopting a role based on serving irresponsible and in his words. The “snapback” mechanisms, under Washington’s request and its oversight, have been activated by these countries to reimpose sanctions against Iran, are in themselves the clearest evidence of this loss of autonomy.
This European collaboration not only erod credibility on the international stage, but also caused a deep crisis of trust between Iran and European institutions. Fukaei stressed that Europe was trying to position itself as a neutral interlocutor, but to examine an agenda that was not itself, it sacrificed all true independence.
An Iranian spokesman condemned the imposition of prerequisites by European powers that hinder actual diplomatic progress. Preconditioning the unilateral waiver of uranium enrichment beyond a certain level is to respect the sovereignty of such activities for peaceful purposes, and is ultimate, not a gesture of dialogue.
Baqaei pointed out that Iran remains open to negotiations and could even lower the enrichment level to those stipulated in the original contract in 2015 if a true commitment was guaranteed by all parties. Nevertheless, European claims for US-defined positions and support for sanctions turn dialogue into mere pantomime. This is a diplomatic theatre that lacks both will and space for substantial negotiations.
In his statement, Bakaei emphasized how tools that should serve as guardians of international legality, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have become politicized tools used to undermine Iran’s sovereignty. He accused the IAEA of leaking Iran’s secret information to Israel, thereby enabling military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is an action that violates the fundamental principles of sovereignty and non-intervention surrounded by international law.
This selective and political use of international law illustrates a hegemonic approach covered in legal rhetoric, but in practice, it applies different criteria depending on the political and military weight of the actors. Thus, criticism from Iranian spokesmen goes beyond Europe’s conquest of Washington. It is also condemned the international legal system captured by the strategic logic of a major power.
US Weight and European Subordination
The analysis reflected in the interview points to a phenomenon that goes beyond the Iranian conflict. It is the strategic decline of Europe as an independent actor. The decisions and pressures on display reveal that Europe has abandoned the task of building a foreign policy rooted in its own interests and values, and instead embraces the passive interdependence determined by Washington’s will.
The role of Europe has diminished to implement subsidiaries’ diplomacy. In this diplomacy, external orders prevail over regional and global interests to defend. This dynamic not only reduces the scope of European maneuvering, but also alienates major actors such as Iran. These attitudes see the abandonment of multilateral promises and submission to foreign agendas.
Beyond the words of the spokesman, we see clear evidence in multiple aspects of Europe that has diluted its strategic ambitions. Despite repeated speeches from the US about the need for autonomy in recent years, and despite growing hostility towards Washington’s allies, the European Union has repeatedly given up on American political and military pressure in key areas such as defense, energy policy and diplomacy.
This surrender is evident in concrete decisions such as the massive purchase of US weapons, including programs like the F-35, and unreserved acceptance of foreign policies designed in Washington, where Europe appears as a secondary collaborator rather than as a protagonist.
The Iranian lawsuit bares how the EU prioritizes partnership with the US to the extent that its own defense of strategic and economic interests has been relegated to the background. This dynamic, reflected in the interview with Fukaray, is no coincidence, part of the broader pattern of Europe transforming from an independent actor into a diplomatic expansion of the White House.
The abandonment of European autonomy undermines the international credibility of multilateralism as a tool for resolving conflicts. The inability to mediate Iran’s nuclear conflict in an independent and reliable voice will affect the global perception of Europe’s true will to build a more equitable world order.
Perhaps a multilateral system based on norms that guarantee equality of state sovereignty is compromised when one of its primary actors operates in a subordinate and instrumental way. By bending to external policies, Europe risks being perceived as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Restoring strategic autonomy is not just a political obligation for Europe, but a matter of geopolitical survival. Its inexplicable and long-term dependence on the US reduces the European Union into a secondary role, weakens its impact, protects its own interests, and puts it at stake in its own ability to effectively respond to complex global conflicts.
As long as Europe remains in this subordination, it is condemned for recreating foreign agendas, losing the trust of important interlocutors and impeding the reconstruction of a fair international order. A truly independent foreign policy recovery – capable of mediating legitimacy and building sustainable solutions – emerges not only as an option, but as an inevitable strategic need.
Europe must make a fundamental change. Leave the role of dependence and followers to embrace the challenge of designing and leading diplomacy with a unique vision. Only then can it be a driving force for dialogue, stability and mutual respect, as it is merely an audience of Iran’s conflict and other major global dilemmas.