Argentina’s President Javier Milei has increasingly aligned his foreign policy with the United States and Israel, a shift that is raising concerns both domestically and internationally as tensions escalate in the Middle East. The move marks a departure from Argentina’s historical stance of neutrality in global conflicts and has prompted fears of potential repercussions.
Milei has consistently voiced strong support for both the U.S. And Israel since before taking office in December 2023, viewing them as key geopolitical allies. This alignment has deepened amid ongoing conflicts, with Milei adopting increasingly assertive rhetoric.
The president’s support has manifested as a personal rapport with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, particularly, with U.S. President Donald Trump.
During a recent speech in New York, Milei referred to Iran as “our enemies,” referencing the 1992 and 1994 attacks on Israeli and Jewish community targets in Argentina, for which Teheran has been implicated. This strong condemnation underscores the intensity of his position.
Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno indicated this week that Argentina would be prepared to provide military support to the United States if requested, though he clarified that no such request has been made. This statement, coupled with a threatening editorial published in a state-run Iranian newspaper and a warning from a senior Iranian Foreign Ministry official, has triggered alarm within Argentina, a nation accustomed to observing international conflicts from a distance.
Axel Kicillof, the governor of Buenos Aires province and a prominent opposition figure, was among the first to voice concerns, urging Milei not to involve Argentina in a foreign war and reminding him of the country’s long-held tradition of neutrality. The call for caution reflects a broader anxiety about the potential consequences of Milei’s foreign policy decisions.
Legislators have also introduced two bills in Congress calling for a halt to the government’s “warlike declarations,” emphasizing that any participation in armed conflict requires parliamentary approval. This legislative action highlights the growing scrutiny of Milei’s approach to international affairs.
“Internally, this generates some discomfort, primarily due to the lack of clarity regarding the foundations of this realignment in foreign policy,” sociologist and Middle East expert Kevin Ary Levin told EFE. He believes that a key motivation behind the unwavering support for the U.S. And Israel is the pursuit of “rewards.”
Political analyst Fabián Calle echoed this sentiment, suggesting that Milei’s stance is partly driven by pragmatic economic considerations. “His sensible diagnosis is that Washington controls the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and has influence over Wall Street. I believe there was also a great deal of pragmatism there,” Calle said.
On Tuesday, Milei participated in a commemoration of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires – which killed 29 people – and asserted that the world is at “a historic moment, in which the United States and Israel have decided to position an finish to the Iranian regime,” which he labeled a “tyranny.” The event took place under heightened security.
Members of the Jewish community consulted by EFE near the event expressed support for the offensive against Iran and approved of Milei’s backing, though some voiced concerns about the president’s tone and the possibility of retaliatory attacks. The differing perspectives within the community underscore the complexity of the situation.
A Return to Equidistance?
Said Chaya, a member of the Committee on the Middle East at the Argentine Council for International Relations, believes that despite gaining electoral legitimacy, the Argentine public is hesitant to become involved in the conflict. The case highlights the potential disconnect between the president’s foreign policy and public sentiment.
“Argentina would have much more to contribute from the previous perspective, in this positioning of equidistance, where we could justifiably serve as a space for articulating dialogue or providing humanitarian assistance,” Chaya argued, advocating for a position “that rejects conflict rather than supporting or encouraging war.”
Given the risk of retaliation in Argentina, where security has been increased at border crossings and locations linked to Israel and the Jewish community since the military offensive began, experts consulted by EFE consider a direct Iranian attack on Argentina unlikely. The move underscores the government’s efforts to mitigate potential threats.
“Now Iran has a number of allies in South America who would seize a very critical stance if any activity were carried out that violated Argentina’s national security,” Chaya noted, differentiating the current scenario from the early 1990s.
Levin, however, suggested that the opposition is politically exploiting fears of retaliation, while lamenting that Argentina “loses the benefits” of remaining on the periphery of conflicts. He warned that Argentina lacks “the objective characteristics one would expect” of a country adopting such a bellicose stance.
“We have porous borders, a very weakened army, and that implies certain risks, the consequences of which are still difficult to foresee,” Levin cautioned.
