MADRID – For most European political analysts, and even some Americans who still defend the liberal consensus, the West is undergoing a reconfiguration of international relations as significant as those of 1989, 1945, or 1919—a turning point that will define an entire generation.

As with those historical moments, the decline of the liberal international order that emerged in the 1990s is generating both expectations and uncertainty, as the certainties of the past, with their highs and lows, begin to crumble.

The final blow to this order, according to these same experts, came when the United States, which in the 90s and 2000s stood as its principal guarantor, began dismantling it piece by piece. In fact, according to Foreign Policy, under the leadership of Donald Trump, the country has become the world’s largest revisionist power. Until recently, the term "revisionist" was applied in the West to China and Russia, referring to their attempts to alter the global status quo. However, in recent months, it has also begun to be associated with the United States, whose political drift is increasingly illiberal.

These trends are reflected, according to Foreign Policy, in the principles that define the emerging new political order: an international economy dominated by a transactional, zero-sum approach, where the gains of some entail the losses of others, and a power politics inspired by Thucydides’ logic, where “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

This adjustment of the Western liberal order is having a direct impact on West Asia, and particularly on Iran. According to Iranian analysts like Mohsen Baharvand, Europe finds itself in an ambiguous position: on the one hand, it seeks alternatives to reduce its dependence on the United States, but on the other, it continues sending signals of alliance to Washington.

In this context, Baharvand argues that Europe could resort to the "snapback" mechanism (reimposition of sanctions) as a way to align itself with the U.S. strategy. In other words, turning the "Iran issue" into a central axis of its relationship with the U.S., using the reactivation of sanctions and other matters related to Tehran as a way to strengthen its ties with Washington.

The European Union could choose a more independent stance in its relationship with Iran, distancing itself from the U.S. approach. Disagreements over the war in Ukraine and Washington’s increasing interference in European internal affairs could prompt Brussels to break away from the U.S. strategy in West Asia.

However, this scenario faces a structural obstacle: Europe continues to interpret foreign policy under the same frameworks inherited from the Cold War, with the U.S. as the axis of the international order and the EU as its secondary partner. Consequently, Europeans still believe they cannot act on the global stage—and Iran is no exception—without the leadership of Washington.

Iranian analysts share this view. They argue that Europe lacks the ability to define an independent policy toward Iran, regardless of its alignment or fragmentation with the U.S. The statements of the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, seem to confirm this perception. Last week, ahead of Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to the White House, Kallas pointed out, “Look at the world: Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea are cooperating with each other. To face this axis, we need unity.”

When asked about the EU’s stance on Tehran, the Estonian diplomat admitted that the discussion had been postponed: “We wanted to talk about Iran, but due to the absence of some foreign ministers, the meeting has been delayed until March.” Her words reflect Brussels' uncertainty, caught between pressure from Washington and the need to redefine its strategy in the face of growing tensions with its traditional ally.

Despite these doubts, the opportunities Iran offers the EU are clear. Its geographical position, which makes it a bridge between Europe, Asia, and Africa, gives it a strategic role in the reconfiguration of the global order. In a scenario of crises and trade disputes, Tehran represents a key node for Europe to strengthen its ties with East Asia and West Asia without relying on the United States.

To establish itself as a global power, the EU needs a network of relationships independent of other global powers. In this regard, Iran's location provides direct land access to the emerging economies of East Asia. Moreover, the current context is unprecedented: never before has the rift between Washington and Brussels been so deep, opening an unprecedented margin for Iranian foreign policy.

On this new board, Tehran faces two still uncertain scenarios. On one hand, the possibility that, despite their differences, Europe and the U.S. will maintain a strategic alliance on Iran. On the other hand, the opportunity that the crisis between the two powers may allow Iran to forge a more pragmatic and beneficial relationship with the EU, rather than resorting to passivity or confrontation.

In European capitals, the alarm is palpable. Several political figures and analysts have begun to raise the possibility of the end of NATO and, more broadly, the end of the West as we know it. The uncertainty intensifies in the face of Washington's decisions: Is the United States seeking to undermine Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign nation? Is Donald Trump carrying out a “Kissinger reversal,” trying to seduce Russian President Vladimir Putin into abandoning his alliance with Xi Jinping and forming an unexpected partnership with Washington? A chasm of transatlantic distrust has opened between both sides of the Atlantic.

In this context, Europe faces a new reality: the military and strategic backing of NATO and the United States is no longer an unquestionable guarantee. What was once a solid security architecture begins to crumble, leaving behind a weakened structure exposed to gradual erosion. In this scenario, the only viable option for the European Union will be to adapt to change, seeking new alliances and redefining its role in a world undergoing reconfiguration.