Sina Raymand – International Affairs Analyst
Background of the Revision of the U.S. National Security Strategy
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS 2025) signifies a clear return to the ideas of “American primacy” and “national sovereignty” as cornerstones of foreign policy. Domestically, the document emphasizes border protection, immigration control, economic security, and the preservation of the American way of life. Globally, it stresses the need to reduce sustained military commitments and pressure allies to shoulder their own security burdens.
This realignment stems from several factors: First, the experience of recent decades, including protracted wars, multiple interventions, and immense costs, has compelled the U.S. to reassess its priorities. Second, maintaining supremacy in technology, energy, and key supply chains is a priority for Washington, and strategic relationships with old allies lose their appeal if they impose heavy financial and security burdens on the U.S. Third, the emphasis on national sovereignty, economic independence, and reduced reliance on multilateral institutions or rules reflects a current trend in Washington. In effect, the U.S. seeks to shift the primary burden and cost of providing security for allies onto themselves, while simultaneously pursuing its foreign policy from a position of strength through continued strategic dominance.

The Impact of the 2025 Strategy on Europe and NATO
For European countries and NATO, the new strategy serves as a serious wake-up call. If the American presence in Europe was once considered a security pillar, today it is no longer seen as a guarantee. Many European countries lack an independent defense infrastructure, and even with increased financial commitments, the structural gap in defense industries and arms supply chains prevents complete reliance on domestic capacity.
The new National Security Strategy downplays or even omits the Russian threat in Europe; this approach is interpreted as a reduced priority for Washington in protecting Europe’s collective security. Neglecting America’s direct commitment and emphasizing indigenous defense fosters the rise of nationalist, right-wing tendencies in Europe; tendencies that seek to reduce defense spending, withdraw from international commitments, and weaken Europe’s collective security.
Under these circumstances, Europe faces two difficult options: either heavy, long-term investment in defense capabilities despite all economic and political consequences, or accepting the new reality, the diminished role of the U.S., and the risk of weakened collective security and increased vulnerability.

The Strategy’s Contradiction with the International Order and Its Implications for Global Rivals
The 2025 National Security Strategy conflicts with the norms and structures of the post-Cold War international order in several aspects:

1. Reduced U.S. Role in Collective Security and NATO: According to this strategy, the U.S. no longer guarantees a permanent military presence in Europe and distances itself from extensive military commitments outside its primary strategic domain. This represents a fundamental change in the nature of the NATO collective security pact and the U.S. role within it.
2. Return to Prioritizing National Interests and State Sovereignty: Unlike the era of “globalization,” Washington now emphasizes borders, autonomy of action, and national sovereignty. This approach is incompatible with the concepts of multilateral cooperation and international rules.
3. Economic and Technological Competition Instead of Cooperation: The focus on U.S. energy, industrial, and technological supremacy intensifies competition with China and Russia. It could pressure the structure of global cooperation and contribute to increased multipolarization of the international system.
   For America’s global rivals, especially powers seeking to increase their independence and to promote multipolarity, this strategy provides an opportunity to redefine relations and enhance their position. However, it simultaneously fuels increased instability and competition.

Comparison with Previous National Security Strategies
Over the past decade, U.S. National Security Strategies presented a combination of “hard security,” international cooperation, and America’s leadership role in the global order. Shared threats, from climate change to terrorism and military challenges, were deemed to require cooperation. However, the 2025 strategy clearly distances itself from this approach, focusing on “border security,” “national sovereignty,” and reducing foreign commitments.
Compared to previous versions, this document places less emphasis on collective cooperation and more on competition with powerful rivals and on securing national interests based on domestic capacity and bureaucracy. This change reflects a historical weariness with the role of “American global leadership.”

Challenges and Risks of the New Strategy for Global Security and the International Order
While adopting the 2025 strategy may appear beneficial for the U.S. in reducing geopolitical and military costs, it poses numerous challenges for the international order and America’s allies:
Increased Instability and Distrust: America’s failure to play an active role will drive other countries towards independent actions or regional alliances, overshadowing the structure of the global order.
Heightened Competition for Resources and Influence: The shift in America’s focus to energy, technology, and vital resources increases competition with China and Russia and could lead to the intensification of regional and global crises.
Damage to European Cohesion and Collective Security: If Europe fails to strengthen its independent defense capacity, divisions within NATO will widen, and collective security will be harmed.
The United States’ 2025 National Security Strategy presents a clear redefinition of the country’s interests, priorities, and operational framework on the international stage. By emphasizing national sovereignty, focusing on domestic interests, and reducing foreign security commitments, this document alters the course of Washington’s foreign policy. For Europe and NATO, this change signals doubt about collective military capability, the need to strengthen independent defense infrastructure, and a serious reassessment of security models. For America’s rivals, it creates an opportunity to redefine power equations, although the risk of heightened instability also increases.
Within the framework of the realist approach in international relations, this strategy makes defending American interests more efficient, but in return, it weakens international cooperation, mutual trust, and collective security. The world’s future will be shaped under conditions in which countries, even America’s past allies, will turn to hard, competitive options to guarantee their security and interests; a situation that will lead to a redefinition of the global power structure.