MADRID – In an exclusive interview with The Guardian, Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, offered a blunt assessment of current tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and the role Europe has chosen to play in this context. 

Far from being a simple diplomatic exchange, his remarks reveal a deeper crisis that goes beyond nuclear negotiations and calls into question the very notion of a sovereign, autonomous European foreign policy.

A Europe that has lost its diplomatic independence

Baqaei did not hesitate to denounce what he called the total subordination of European powers to U.S. control. He harshly criticized France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, accusing them of acting as the spearhead of U.S. and Israeli policy in the region, following “Trump’s orders” and adopting roles that, in his words, verge on the irresponsible and the servile. The “snapback” mechanism activated by these countries to reimpose sanctions on Iran—at Washington’s behest and under its supervision—is, in itself, the clearest proof of this loss of autonomy.

This European alignment has not only eroded its credibility on the international stage but has also triggered a profound crisis of trust between Iran and European institutions. Baqaei stressed that while Europe seeks to position itself as a neutral interlocutor, it has sacrificed all genuine independence in order to validate an agenda that is not its own.

The Iranian spokesperson condemned the imposition of preconditions by European powers that obstruct any real diplomatic progress. Making Iran’s unilateral renunciation of uranium enrichment beyond certain levels a prerequisite—without respecting its sovereign right to such activity for peaceful purposes—is not a gesture of dialogue but an ultimatum.

Baqaei noted that Iran remains open to negotiation and could even reduce enrichment levels to those stipulated in the original 2015 agreement if genuine commitments were guaranteed by all parties. Nevertheless, Europe’s insistence on upholding U.S.-dictated positions and sanctions turns dialogue into a mere pantomime—a diplomatic theater devoid of both will and space for real negotiation.

In his statements, Baqaei also highlighted how instruments that should serve as guardians of international legality, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have become politicized tools used to undermine Iranian sovereignty. He accused the IAEA of leaking Iran’s confidential information to Israel, thereby enabling military attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities—an action that violates the basic principles of sovereignty and non-intervention enshrined in international law.

This selective and political use of international law demonstrates a hegemonic approach cloaked in legalistic rhetoric but which, in reality, applies different standards depending on the political and military weight of the actors involved. The Iranian spokesperson’s critique, therefore, goes beyond Europe’s subjugation to Washington: it also denounces an international legal system captured by the strategic logic of the major powers.

The weight of U.S. command and Europe’s subordination

The analysis reflected in the interview points to a phenomenon that goes beyond the Iranian conflict: Europe’s strategic decline 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, instead embracing a passive interdependence dictated by Washington’s will.

Europe’s role has been reduced to conducting subsidiary diplomacy, in which external orders prevail over the regional and global interests it ought to defend. This dynamic not only diminishes Europe’s room for maneuver but also alienates key actors such as Iran, who see in these attitudes the abandonment of the multilateral promise and a submission to foreign agendas.

Beyond the spokesperson’s words, we see across multiple fronts clear evidence of a Europe that has diluted its strategic ambitions. In recent years, despite recurring speeches on the need for autonomy from the United States and despite Washington’s growing hostility toward its allies, the European Union has repeatedly yielded to 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 U.S. weaponry—including programs like the F-35—and the unreserved acceptance of foreign policies designed in Washington, where Europe appears not as a protagonist but as a secondary collaborator.

The Iranian case has laid bare how the EU has prioritized alignment with the United States to such an extent that the defense of its own strategic and economic interests has been relegated to the background. This dynamic, reflected in Baqaei’s interview, is no accident but part of a broader pattern in which Europe has transformed from an independent actor into a diplomatic extension of the White House.

Europe’s abandonment of autonomy also weakens the international credibility of multilateralism as a tool for resolving conflicts. The EU’s inability to mediate in the Iranian nuclear dispute with an independent and credible voice affects global perceptions of Europe’s true willingness to build a fairer world order.

The multilateral system, supposedly based on norms guaranteeing the sovereign equality of states, is compromised when one of its key actors operates in a subordinated and instrumental manner. By bending to external policies, Europe risks being perceived not as part of the solution but as part of the problem—further delaying the essential rebuilding of international trust.

Regaining strategic autonomy is not merely a political imperative for Europe but a matter of geopolitical survival. Its inexplicable and prolonged dependence on the United States reduces the European Union to a secondary role, weakens its influence, and jeopardizes its ability to defend its own interests and respond effectively to complex global conflicts.

So long as Europe remains in this state of subordination, it will be condemned to replicate foreign agendas, losing the trust of crucial interlocutors and hindering the reconstruction of a fair international order. The recovery of a truly independent foreign policy—one capable of mediating with legitimacy and building sustainable solutions—thus emerges not just as an option but as an unavoidable strategic necessity.

Europe must make a fundamental change: leave behind dependence and the role of follower to embrace the challenge of designing and leading a diplomacy with its own vision. Only then can it move from being a mere spectator of the Iranian conflict and other major global dilemmas to becoming a driving force for dialogue, stability, and mutual respect—building a future in which its decisions are not dictated from abroad but forged from within.