Radio ExpressTV
Live
An Analysis of the New American Strategy: Pressures on Europe and Opportunities for Global Rebalancing
Abdallah Mashnoon – Journalist
The new U.S. National Security Strategy issued in December 2025 reflects a profound shift in the philosophy of America’s international role. This shift is significant not only because it imposes restrictions on traditional American military commitments or rearranges the priorities of the international order towards a more pragmatic and less interventionist vision. It also presents a new conception of how Washington manages relationships with both its allies and adversaries. At the core of this transformation is a radically different stance towards Europe, alongside a robust return to leveraging tariffs and protectionist policies in foreign trade as direct tools to enhance American interests, contrasting sharply with the liberal principles that have shaped American trade policy since the end of World War II.
Clearly, this new document does not view Europe as the natural partner upon which the Western system relies. Instead, it perceives the region as facing internal turmoil, economic decline, the rise of populist forces, and a waning confidence in the democratic model—all of which undermine its ability to contribute meaningfully to a strategic partnership with Washington. Consequently, the strategy adopts a less enthusiastic and more critical tone towards Europe, attributing some of the blame for what the document refers to as “civilizational decline” to certain European countries, linked to issues such as migration, weak border control, and the decline of the industrial base. This language does not merely reflect the stance of a particular administration in the White House; it reveals a new American interpretation that views Europe as no longer capable of fulfilling its traditional role in defending the international order or shouldering the strategic burdens faced by the United States worldwide.
This transformation is grounded in real-world observations. The Russian-Ukrainian war has drained European capacities, revealing that the continent is ill-prepared for a prolonged conflict with Russia and that its reliance on American security support runs deeper than it publicly acknowledges. Some assessments in Washington even suggest that European dependence on the American security umbrella represents an intolerable burden if the United States aims to focus on the rise of China in Asia and compete with other major industrial powers. Thus, the new strategy is moving towards a “redistribution of burdens” rather than maintaining an open-ended guarantee of European security, which effectively demands that Europe assume greater responsibilities in defense and military spending, without necessarily increasing American commitments in return.
In addition to this political and strategic shift, the document reveals an increasing economic tension between the United States and Europe. The new national security vision directly integrates the economy into the security framework, asserting that restoring the American industrial base and reducing reliance on imports—even from historical partners—is essential for rebuilding national strength. Consequently, the document adopts a clearly protectionist approach, reinstating tariffs as a means to achieve political and economic gains, rather than merely as a trade policy. Thus, tariffs become not just an economic measure but a tool for exerting pressure on allies and adversaries alike, as well as a method for regulating global supply chains and bringing certain industries back within the United States.
This shift puts Europe in a precarious position. For instance, German and French industries, particularly in sectors such as automotive, technology, and clean energy, face a real threat from the new American policies that impose tariffs on European imports or offer substantial support to domestic industries, creating an uneven playing field. From a broader perspective, these policies undermine the theoretical foundation that the transatlantic economic partnership was built upon—free trade, market openness, and reduced barriers. Nevertheless, the American strategy places absolute priority on relocating strategic industries and thwarting China in advanced technology sectors, even at the expense of Europe, which stands to be the first victim of these approaches.
Despite this landscape filled with concerns, Europe’s status as a latent superpower should not be underestimated. The old continent, home to the largest single market in the world, possesses significant technological, industrial, and scientific capabilities. Its human and educational potential theoretically and practically qualifies it to lead global transformations in clean energy, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing. What Europe needs is not miracles, but a renewal of political vision, a willingness to overcome internal divisions, and the establishment of a culture of strategic integration. If European unity can be rebuilt on solid foundations, it can produce a power that stands alongside the United States and China, rather than being merely a follower or recipient of the whims of others.
Perhaps one of the most notable sources of Europe’s strength is the cohesion of its peoples and their commitment to democratic values and human rights, despite the crises the continent has faced over the past two decades. Contrary to what some may suggest, Europeans are not heading towards division or isolation; rather, they are communities striving to preserve their social model and protect the value system they built after World War II. And although some far-right movements have emerged in several countries, European societies remain fundamentally open and tolerant, respecting cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity, and actively promoting a culture of coexistence that has become part of their social and humanitarian fabric. This civic spirit empowers Europe, provided it has wise political leadership, to overcome waves of populism and racism, just as it has previously weathered harsher economic and political crises.
It is impossible to discuss Europe’s future without affirming that American support—if it continues with the same strength—represents an indispensable lever for restoring the continent’s strategic stability. The transatlantic partnership was not merely a military alliance within NATO; it was a political, economic, and technological safety net that enabled Europe to rebuild itself after World War II and address the crises of the twentieth century. The future of the European continent may remain promising, potentially even pioneering on the global stage, if Washington remains committed to supporting European nations in enhancing their defensive capabilities, developing their technological industries, and maintaining market openness. The integration between Europe and the United States, if well invested, could form the world’s strongest democratic and economic axis, countering the Chinese-American competition that threatens the future of the international order.
Despite its crises, Europe today stands at a historical crossroads: it must either invest in its soft power, regain its economic and scientific momentum, and build a common defense system to enhance its independence, or it will remain at the mercy of the fluctuations of American policy, posing risks to its stability and standing. However, it is clear that Europe is not as weak as some portray it, nor is it threatened with collapse as others claim. It is a continent that knows how to rise from the ashes, how to transform crises into opportunities, as its long history reflects a rare capacity for transformation, innovation, and renewal. The real challenge today is not a lack of power, but a lack of unified decision-making and collective political will.
Understanding this shift requires a broader comprehension of the current landscape of power. The international system is no longer an open economic structure as it was in the post-Cold War era; it has become a battleground for fierce competition over technology, supply chains, rare raw materials, and energy. In this context, Washington views tariffs not as burdensome or detrimental to free trade but as a defensive tool to protect the national economy, prevent adversaries from accessing American markets, and ensure that strategic industries remain within borders. Clearly, this approach does not solely target China; it also extends to partners that Washington perceives as benefiting from the American market without contributing equitably to security or supply chain restructuring.
Regarding the future of American-European relations, this transformation opens the door to a complex phase of structural tension. Washington no longer views Europe as a cohesive ally but as a partner with which it can cooperate when interests align, and confront when American priorities are threatened. Conversely, Europe finds itself compelled to deal with an American administration that regards the protection of domestic industries as more important than maintaining a transatlantic economic partnership, asserting that rebuilding America’s internal strength cannot occur without imposing import restrictions, including on goods from allies.
Nevertheless, this transformation does not negate the strategic relationship between the two parties. The United States still considers the alliance with Europe essential for containing Russia, addressing tensions on the continent, and managing the international system within multilateral frameworks. However, the core idea promoted by the new strategy is that “partnership does not mean dependency,” and that Europe must bear its share of military and economic costs, cease relying on Washington for every crisis related to migration, energy, and borders, and rebuild its industrial base to allow for strategic independence.
Although the document does not directly state this, some analyses suggest that the new American policy towards Europe also carries an internal electoral aspect. The American industry and the working-class base have become a crucial foundation for any stable electoral majority, and the past years have proven that American voters have become increasingly sensitive to issues of trade, manufacturing, and local jobs. Thus, the Biden administration’s adoption of strong protectionist policies also reflects an attempt to solidify an internal political base by demonstrating resolve against trade competitors, whether from the East or even from allies in the West.
In conclusion, the American strategy of 2025 reveals a clear transition from a transatlantic partnership once deemed central to the Western system post-World War II to a more pragmatic and competitive relationship, potentially more fragile as well. It also unveils a new vision of American power that considers that restoring the industrial base, tightening trade restrictions, and using tariffs as leverage are essential conditions for ensuring continued American supremacy in a rapidly changing world. Simultaneously, this strategy places Europe before a genuine moment of self-reflection: it must either rebuild its industrial and military capabilities to become a partner capable of keeping pace with new transformations or face further marginalization in a global power structure that is being reshaped on entirely different foundations from those recognized in previous decades.
