TEHRAN - In the grand theatre of international relations, Argentina has once again taken centre stage, but not for a performance worth applauding. 

Under President Javier Milei, a.k.a. “Argentina’s Trump”, the nation has embarked on a reckless and unnecessary hostile approach toward Iran, a move that reeks of compliance with the United States’ irrational demands. This strategy, ostensibly aimed at solving Argentina’s ever-deepening economic woes, is a textbook case of diplomatic immaturity—one that risks severe consequences while ignoring the lessons of history and the virtues of independent foreign policy.

Let’s set the scene: Argentina, grappling with an inflation rate that, while down to 84.5% in early 2025 from a staggering 211% in 2023, still suffocates its citizens, is desperate for a $20 billion lifeline from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The U.S., wielding its influence within the IMF, has dangled this loan as a carrot, but with a catch—Argentina must sever its currency swap agreement with China, a financial mechanism that has been a critical buffer for its depleted reserves. On April 4, 2025, Mauricio Claver Carone, a top Trump adviser, made this condition explicit, framing the swap line as “extortionate” and a tool of Chinese influence. But the U.S. demands don’t stop there. Argentina’s recent ‘judicial’ move against Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei reeks of a broader alignment with Washington’s anti-Iran agenda, a compliance that extends to reconstructing its already strained relations with Tehran.

On April 9, 2025, Argentine prosecutor Sebastián Basso requested an arrest warrant for Iran’s Leader, claiming he issued a fatwa to orchestrate the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires, which claimed 85 lives. Yet, this accusation echoes a troubling pattern that began immediately after the attack, when the Zionist owners of the AMIA centre pointed fingers at Iran—despite ongoing investigations and Iran’s repeated condemnations of the bombing as a heinous act of terrorism. The initial claim rested solely on a flimsy hypothesis: that Iran sought to retaliate for the cancellation of a nuclear technology and material procurement contract concluded between the two nations during the presidency of Raul Alfonsin. No concrete evidence supported this theory, yet it set the tone for decades of baseless allegations, revealing a rush to judgment that reeks of political expediency rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

The narrative against Iran gained traction over the years but not through credible evidence. Nine years after the attack, in 2003, Argentina’s intelligence service (SIDE) produced the first pile of so-called evidence, conveniently aligned with the early accusations against Iran—raising suspicions of bias in a case already mired in controversy, particularly after the 2015 murder of prosecutor Alberto Nisman, whose death, ruled a homicide, still casts doubt on the integrity of Argentina’s judicial process. A key player in framing Iran has been the terrorist organization Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), whose agenda against Tehran is well-documented; astonishingly, the testimonies of four MEK members were cited 61 times in the warrant, despite their dubious credibility. The key beneficiary of this long campaign appears to be Israel, which has pressured Argentina’s judicial system for three decades to pin the blame on Iran. Yet, the evidence presented by Argentine authorities has been so unconvincing that even a British court in 2004 ruled there was insufficient proof to link Iranian politicians to the attack, dismissing the allegations outright. Similarly, Interpol, finding the case against Iranian nationals ungrounded, refrained from executing an international arrest warrant and eventually revoked it—a move that sparked Argentina’s outrage but underscored the global skepticism toward these claims. Iran has steadfastly denied any involvement, and the absence of solid proof suggests Argentina is playing a dangerous game of diplomatic theatre at Washington’s behest, with Israel pulling strings in the shadows.

This hostile approach will not go unnoticed by Iran, nor will it be without consequences. Tehran, a nation with a rich history of navigating complex international dynamics, is likely to view Argentina’s actions as an unwarranted escalation. Rather than fostering dialogue, Argentina’s move could strain diplomatic relations further, potentially impacting future opportunities for cooperation in areas like trade or energy. Iran, known for its measured approach to global affairs, may choose to respond through diplomatic channels, possibly by reevaluating its engagement with Argentina or seeking to address the issue through international forums. Argentina, already teetering on the edge of economic collapse with poverty levels exceeding 45%, can ill afford to alienate a country with which it could find mutual benefit through constructive engagement.

The broader folly here is Argentina’s full-throated compliance with U.S.-dictated policies, a path that has proven disastrous for other nations. Look no further than Canada, which, under pressure from the U.S., detained Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in 2018 at Washington’s behest, sparking a diplomatic crisis with China. The fallout saw two Canadian citizens detained in China for nearly three years, trade relations battered, and Canada’s global standing diminished—all for aligning with a U.S. policy that ultimately yielded little strategic gain. Argentina risks a similar fate, sacrificing its sovereignty and long-term interests for short-term economic relief that may not even materialize. The U.S. demand to scrap the China swap line, for instance, threatens to destabilize Argentina’s reserves at a critical moment, potentially derailing Milei’s reform agenda and fuelling further social unrest. If the U.S. blocks the IMF loan over non-compliance, Argentina could face a deeper crisis, proving once again that blind allegiance to Washington’s whims is a losing bet.

The better option—always—lies in developing independent relationships with other countries, rooted in mutual respect and shared interests. Argentina’s currency swap with China, for example, has been a pragmatic lifeline, allowing it to manage foreign exchange shortages without the stringent austerity measures the IMF often demands. Iran, too, could be a partner in areas like energy or trade if Argentina were to pursue a balanced foreign policy rather than antagonizing Tehran at Washington’s behest. History shows that nations thrive when they prioritize sovereignty over subservience.

In its reckless rift with Iran, Argentina is burning bridges it can scarcely afford to lose, setting ablaze potential ties that could have fostered mutual benefit. From the halls of power in Buenos Aires, President Milei has chosen to fan the flames of U.S.-dictated hostility, ignoring the embers of history that warn against such blind allegiance. It’s time for Argentina to douse the fire, to rebuild the bridges it has scorched, and to forge a foreign policy that prioritizes its people over its puppeteers. The stakes are too high for Buenos Aires to let this blaze consume its future.