The costly consequences of Milei's unconditional alliance with Israel

Argentina is paying a high price for its alignment with Israel: diplomatic risk, a threat to national security, and the loss of key support for the Malvinas issue. A geopolitical gamble with more costs than benefits.

18 de June de 2025 09:31

Javier Milei with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The recent signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between Argentina and Israel , amid a massive Israeli attack on Iran and the latter's response, is not just a diplomatic gesture: it is a high-stakes geopolitical gamble that could have immediate and severe repercussions for national interests.

President Javier Milei , in his eagerness to align himself unequivocally with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu , has not only ignored the delicate balance that Argentina has historically maintained in the Middle East, but has also exposed the country to strategic, economic, and security retaliation.

The diplomatic cost

For decades, Argentina has achieved near-unanimous support from Arab and Muslim countries for its claim to sovereignty over the Malvina Islands . This support is no coincidence: it was built through a prudent foreign policy that avoided extreme alignments in foreign conflicts. However, Milei's open allegiance to Israel—just as that country was launching a bombing campaign against Iran—could erode that support.

Iran has already made its position clear : editorials in pro-government media outlets like the Tehran Times warn that Argentina will "regret" its enmity.

But the problem isn't limited to Tehran . Key countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, while not sympathetic to Iran, have harshly criticized the Israeli offensive. If Argentina is perceived as a satellite of Tel Aviv, what incentive will these countries have to continue supporting Buenos Aires in international forums? 

Threat to national security

Recent history shows that Argentina is not immune to the tensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . The attacks on the AMIA and the Israeli embassy in the 1990s—attributed by the Argentine justice system to Iran and Hezbollah—were reprisals for the pro-Israeli shift by the Carlos Menem administration.

Today, with Milei repeating the same script , but in an even more volatile regional context, the risk of attacks against Jewish or even state interests in Argentina is real.

The preventive closure of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the increased security at synagogues and community centers are warning signs. But the question is: is Argentina prepared to sustain this level of alert indefinitely? Or is the government underestimating the cost of "importing" a conflict that isn't its responsibility?

Strategic incoherence

Milei justifies his over-the-top alliance with Israel in the name of the fight against terrorism and antisemitism, laudable causes in themselves. But by doing so in such an explicit and caricatured manner, and at the worst possible moment—just as Israel is launching an offensive condemned by the UN and much of the international community—Argentina loses room for maneuver.

The Israeli government doesn't need Argentina for its survival . Argentina, on the other hand, needs to maintain diversified relationships in a multipolar world. By tying itself so closely to such a polarizing actor, Milei not only alienates traditional allies but also weakens Argentina's position on other fronts, from negotiations with the IMF to trade agreements with China, another key Iranian partner.

Sovereignty vs. spectacle

Foreign policy should not be an ideological performance, but an instrument for protecting national interests . By "buying off" another country's conflict, the Argentine government doesn't gain influence; it loses it. It doesn't strengthen its security; it compromises it. And, most seriously, it jeopardizes decades of diplomatic consensus for an alliance that, at best, will be symbolic, and at worst, catastrophic.

Milei seems to believe that his alignment with Israel brings him closer to the West. But in international politics, flattery is not a strategy. And the consequences of this mistake could be irreversible.

Tags

Other news about International

Might interest you

COMMENTS

No comments yet

Log in or sign up to comment.