Buenos Aires – A shift in Argentina’s traditionally neutral stance on international conflicts is raising concerns both within the country and abroad. President Javier Milei’s increasingly vocal support for the United States and Israel in the ongoing conflict with Iran, coupled with assertive rhetoric, has departed from decades of Argentine foreign policy and sparked fears of potential repercussions. The debate centers on whether this alignment represents a pragmatic geopolitical strategy or a risky departure from a long-held position of equidistance.
Milei’s alignment with Washington and Jerusalem isn’t new, having expressed strong support for both nations even before taking office in December 2023. However, the intensity of his statements has escalated as tensions in the Middle East have risen. This shift is particularly notable given Argentina’s history of maintaining a balanced approach to international disputes, a posture rooted in a desire to avoid entanglement in conflicts far from its shores. The current situation is prompting a reassessment of those principles, and a growing anxiety about the potential for Argentina to be drawn into a wider regional or global conflict.
The most striking example of this shift came during a recent speech in New York, where Milei referred to Iran as “our enemies,” referencing the 1992 and 1994 terrorist attacks against Israeli and Jewish community targets in Argentina. Argentine courts have attributed responsibility for those attacks to Tehran. This language, along with a suggestion from Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno that Argentina would be willing to provide military support to the U.S. If requested – though he clarified that no such request has been made – has fueled the disquiet. These statements were amplified by a threatening editorial published in a Tehran-based newspaper and a warning from the director of the Department of America at Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, further raising the stakes.
A History of Neutrality Challenged
Argentina’s traditional foreign policy has prioritized non-intervention and diplomatic solutions. This approach stems, in part, from the country’s own experiences with conflict and political instability. As Axel Kicillof, the Peronist governor of Buenos Aires province and a leading opposition figure, pointed out, Milei’s stance risks abandoning this established neutrality. Kicillof has urged the president to avoid involving Argentina in a war that does not directly concern its national interests. His call reflects a broader concern within the political opposition and among segments of the Argentine public.
The concerns aren’t limited to the opposition. Two legislative projects have been introduced in the Argentine Congress seeking to curb the government’s “bellicose declarations,” emphasizing that any participation in an armed conflict requires parliamentary approval, as outlined in the Argentine Constitution. This underscores the constitutional checks and balances designed to prevent unilateral presidential action on matters of war and peace.
Economic and Geopolitical Calculations
Analysts suggest that Milei’s strong alignment with the U.S. And Israel may be driven by a combination of ideological conviction and pragmatic political calculation. Sociologist Kevin Ary Levin, speaking to the EFE news agency, believes that the administration is seeking “rewards” for its unwavering support. This perspective suggests that Milei’s government views closer ties with Washington as a means to secure economic benefits and favorable treatment from international financial institutions.
Political scientist Fabián Calle echoed this sentiment, arguing that Milei recognizes the significant influence the United States wields over institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and Wall Street. “The sensible diagnosis he made is that the one who manages the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and has influence over Wall Street is Washington,” Calle stated. Argentina is currently navigating a complex economic crisis and is heavily reliant on international lending, making access to these institutions crucial.
During a commemoration of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people, Milei stated that the world is witnessing a “historic moment” in which the U.S. And Israel have “decided to put an end to the Iranian regime,” which he labeled a “tyranny.” While members of the Jewish community present at the event generally expressed support for the offensive against Iran and Milei’s backing, some voiced concerns about the potential for retaliatory attacks, according to EFE reporting.
A Return to Equidistance?
Despite the current shift, some experts believe that Argentina’s long-standing tradition of neutrality remains deeply ingrained in the national psyche. Said Chaya, a member of the Middle East Committee of the Argentine Council for International Relations, argues that while Milei’s realignment has gained some legitimacy through the ballot box, the Argentine population is generally reluctant to become involved in foreign conflicts. He suggests that Argentina could play a more constructive role by offering itself as a space for dialogue or humanitarian assistance, rather than actively supporting military action.
Security measures have been increased at border crossings and locations associated with Israel and the Jewish community in Argentina since the escalation of the conflict, reflecting the government’s awareness of potential risks. However, experts consulted by EFE generally believe that a direct Iranian attack on Argentine soil remains unlikely. Chaya noted that Iran has allies in South America who would likely condemn any action that threatened Argentina’s national security.
Levin cautioned that the opposition may be exploiting fears of retaliation for political gain, but also lamented the potential loss of benefits associated with maintaining a neutral stance. He highlighted Argentina’s vulnerabilities, including porous borders and a weakened military, which could make it susceptible to unforeseen consequences. “We have porous borders, a very weakened army, and that implies certain risks, whose consequences are still difficult to predict,” Levin warned.
The coming weeks will be critical in determining the extent to which Argentina will deepen its alignment with the U.S. And Israel. The government has not yet indicated whether it would respond to a direct request for military assistance from Washington, and the debate within Argentina over the appropriate course of action is likely to intensify. The next official statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding Argentina’s position on the conflict is expected in early April. Readers seeking information and support related to conflict and trauma can find resources at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Helpline.
Share your thoughts on Argentina’s evolving foreign policy stance in the comments below.
Related reading
