At Tehran – The Grand Theatre of International Relations, Argentina has once again won the Centre Stage, not for a performance worthy of praise.
Under President Javier Miley, also known as “Argentine Trump,” the nation embarked on a reckless, unnecessary, hostile approach to Iran. On the surface, this strategy aimed at solving Argentina’s constant economic disaster is the case of diplomatic, immature textbooks. It puts serious consequences at stake, ignoring the lessons of history and the virtues of independent foreign policy.
Let’s set the scene. Argentina is working on inflation, falling from an astounding 211% in 2023 to 84.5% in early 2025, but citizens are suffocating and desperate for a $20 billion lifeline from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The US, which wields its influence within the IMF, has hanging the loan as a carrot, but has acquired catches. Argentina must cut off its currency exchange agreement with China. On April 4, 2025, top top adviser Mauricio Claver Karon made this state explicit and framed the swapline as “terrifying” as a tool for Chinese influence. But US demands should not cease there. A recent “judicial” movement against leaders of the Islamic Revolution in Argentina, Ali Khamenei has recognised broader alignment with Washington’s anti-Iranian agenda.
On April 9, 2025, Argentine prosecutor Sebastian Basso demanded an arrest warrant from Iranian leaders and claimed that he issued fatwa to coordinate the 1994 Amia bombing in Buenos Aires, which claimed 85 lives. However, the accusations reflect a troubling pattern that began shortly after the attack. When the Zionist owner of the Amia Centre pointed his fingers at Iran, despite repeated accusations of Iran’s continued investigation and bombing as a heinous act of terrorism. The initial claims rested solely on the flimsy hypothesis. Iran was trying to retaliate between President Raul Alfonsin to cancel the nuclear technology and material procurement contract signed between the two countries. Although there was no concrete evidence to support this theory, it set the tone of decades of unfounded allegations, revealing a rush to judgement of reeke of political convenience rather than a pursuit of true justice.
The story of Iran has gained traction over the years, but not through credible evidence. Nine years after the attack, in 2003, Argentine Intelligence Agency (side) produced the first mountain of so-called evidence. It is conveniently lined up with early accusations against Iran. A key player in Iranian framing was Mujahedin et Kalk (MEK), a terrorist organization whose agenda for Tehran is well documented. To my surprise, the testimony of the four MEK members was quoted 61 times on warrants despite their suspicious reliability. The main beneficiary of this long campaign looks like Israel. Israel has been putting pressure on Argentina’s judicial system for 30 years to lock Iran’s responsibility down. However, the evidence presented by the Argentinean authorities was so unconvincing that even a British court in 2004 ruled that there was insufficient evidence to link Iranian politicians to the attack, completely dismissing the claim. Similarly, Interpol has granted lawsuits against Iranian citizens, and has finally revoked them, refraining from carrying out an international arrest warrant. The move sparked outrage in Argentina, but highlighted global skepticism about these claims. Iran has firmly denies its involvement, and the lack of solid evidence suggests that Argentina is playing a dangerous game of diplomatic drama at Washington’s request, with Israel pulling the string in the shadows.
This hostile approach is unnoticed by Iran and has no consequences. Tehran, a country with a rich history of navigating complex international dynamics, could view Argentina’s actions as an unfair escalation. Rather than fostering dialogue, Argentina’s moves could further strain diplomatic relations and impact future opportunities for cooperation in areas such as trade and energy. Known for its measured approach to global operations, Iran could choose to respond through diplomatic channels, perhaps by reassessing its involvement with Argentina or by trying to address the issue through international forums. Argentina is already wandering at the edge of economic collapse with a poverty level of over 45%, but it cannot afford to alienate countries that can find mutual benefits through constructive involvement.
The broader stupidity here is the complete repressive compliance with Argentina’s US-wide policies. This is a path that proves a path that is disastrous for other countries. At Washington’s request in 2018, we will not look beyond Canada under pressure from the US. In Fallout, two Canadian citizens were detained in China for nearly three years, mistreating trade relations, and Canada’s global status declined. Argentina risks a similar fate, at the expense of its sovereignty and long-term interests, and sacrifices for short-term economic relief that may not even be materialized. For example, the US has called for the removal of China’s swapline, threatening to destabilize Argentina’s reserves at key moments, potentially derailing Miley’s reform agenda, and fostering further social unrest. If the US blocks IMF loans over non-compliance, Argentina could face a deeper crisis, and once again proves that Washington’s blind loyalty to the whim is a losing bet.
It involves building better options: building independent relationships with other countries rooted in mutual respect and shared interests. For example, the exchange of currency with China in Argentina is a practical lifeline, allowing the IMF to manage the forex shortage without the strict austerity measures that are often demanded. Iran could also be a partner in areas such as energy and trade when Argentina pursues a balanced foreign policy rather than hostile to Tehran at Washington’s request. History shows that states flourish when sovereignty is prioritized over subordinates.
In a reckless rift with Iran, Argentina is burning a bridge that they can hardly afford to lose, burning potential bonds that could promote mutual benefits. From the hall of power in Buenos Aires, President Miley chose to incite the flames of U.S. defined hostility, ignoring the embers of history that warn such blind loyalty. It’s time for Argentina to launch fires, rebuild burning bridges, and build a foreign policy that prioritizes people over puppeteers. The stakes are too high for Buenos Aires to consume this flame.