The escalating tension in the Middle East, marked by the US bombing of Iranian civilian nuclear bases under the Trump administration in support of the Israeli "preemptive strike," paints a global picture of extreme concern.
This narrative, which imagines Israel acting under the fallacy of a nuclear Iran, and the United States unilaterally supporting such actions without the approval of the UN Security Council or the US Congress itself, is a reflection of a fragile international order prone to unilateralism. From Argentina, these dynamics take on a particular and alarming resonance, given Javier Milei's recent decisions.
The premise of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, justified by Tehran's alleged nuclear arms race, has been consistently denied by international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The international community has reiterated that Iran's nuclear program is under strict supervision and is for peaceful purposes. However, this threat narrative has historically served as a pretext for military actions that further destabilize the region, fueling a cycle of violence with global ramifications.
In this volatile context, Argentine foreign policy has undergone a radical and extremely dangerous shift . President Javier Milei's decision to move the Argentine embassy to Jerusalem , in open violation of international law and United Nations resolutions, represents a break with the historical stance of non-interference and diplomatic balance that has characterized Argentine foreign policy.
This action, which implies an explicit alignment with Israel, has been interpreted as a provocation by Iran, which Milei has described as an "enemy of Argentina," generating strong condemnation from Iranian authorities.
This change of course is not an isolated incident. Argentina's vote at the UN against the resolution condemning the humanitarian genocide in the Gaza Strip , coupled with the signing of cooperation agreements in Education and Defense with Benjamin Netanyahu's government , deepens the concern.
These decisions have not only placed Argentina in a compromising international position, but have also raised the possibility of impeachment proceedings against the president, which many consider a violation of constitutional principles and a deviation from national interests.
The recklessness is compounded by Argentina's request to become a "global partner" of NATO and the announcement of a US military intervention, through the Southern Command, in Argentina's Antarctic development . The proposal to build an Integrated Naval Base in Ushuaia , with the intention that the United States use it to supply its nuclear submarines , is a measure that not only compromises national sovereignty over a vital geostrategic area, but also inserts Argentina into the orbit of global power conflicts.
This alarming alignment occurs while Argentina has held the Malvina Islands and vast maritime areas of the South Atlantic, totaling 1.6 million square kilometers, under its control since 1833. Within this context, the Israeli company Navitas Petroleum, with its partner Rockhopper, is preparing to begin exploitation of a world-class oil field north of the archipelago, which the usurpers named Sea Lion.
The United States and Great Britain are not only historical economic and military partners, but are also two NATO member countries and the main pillars of Israel's military power and territorial advance in the Middle East . The paradox is evident: Argentina, the victim of territorial dispossession by a NATO power, now seeks a global partnership with the same alliance that militarily supports its occupier.
Israel's violent and unilateral stance toward its neighbors, which could be the prelude to a Third World War involving the intervention of powers like Russia and China, demands profound reflection. President Milei's decisions, far from seeking stability and peace, are dragging Argentina down an erratic, irresponsible, and extremely dangerous path.
Recent history shows that interference in foreign conflicts, especially those with a strong geopolitical and military component, can have devastating consequences for peripheral nations.
The future of the world hangs in the balance, and inconsistent actions like Milei's, which embrace unilateral and confrontational agendas, only serve to further strain the situation. Argentina, with its history of defending peace and multilateralism, is embarking on a path that distances it from its founding principles and brings it dangerously close to the precipice of international conflicts with unforeseeable consequences. It is imperative that Argentine society, its institutions, and the international community reflect on this course before it is too late.
