Just two hours before Israel launched what it called a ‘new phase’ in the region on the night of June 12, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bid farewell to Argentine President Javier Milei. The timing was striking, but so was the message. Far from a routine visit, Milei’s trip underscored his intention to place Argentina among Israel’s most vocal international allies.

That intention was made concrete during the visit, when Milei pledged to relocate Argentina’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by 2026, a shift that would make Argentina only the seventh country in the world to do so. The move breaks with decades of Argentine foreign policy and signals a rare full endorsement of Israel’s internationally disputed claim over the city, placing Buenos Aires firmly outside the regional and international consensus.

Yet as the region moves toward a more pragmatic diplomacy, Milei’s unwavering alignment approach reflects a foreign policy lagging behind current geopolitical trends and realities — one that carries rising costs and offers few clear benefits.

Milei’s pro-Israel stance: ideology or strategy?

Speaking two days after U.S. operation targeted three nuclear facilities in Iran, and on the eve of the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly, a State Department spokesperson urged countries in Latin America to “choose which side they are going to be on” in the growing confrontation with Tehran. For Argentina, that choice appears already made on Israel’s side just like the United States.

President Milei’s embrace of Israel is both ideological and strategic. Inspired by libertarian and conservative currents in the U.S., particularly among Republican lawmakers, Milei has cast Israel as a bastion of Western values, technological strength, and democratic resilience.

You may also be interested in: Israeli minister celebrates Iran prison strike with Javier Milei’s slogan

The embassy relocation is central to this posture. While symbolic, it has outsized diplomatic weight. It signals a willingness to break with long-standing international norms and places Argentina firmly in a camp aligned with Israel, the U.S. right, and a handful of other governments.

His first visit to Israel was also more than a routine stop. After attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Israel was the first country Milei visited at the state level following his election, highlighting not only diplomatic alignment but a personal commitment to deepening the bilateral relationship between countries.

An observer might argue that Milei’s interest in Israel may also carry a theological dimension, as the president has publicly referenced his admiration for Jewish history and spirituality in various appearances. But the singular focus on Israel, especially when viewed alongside other regional powers, has drawn attention.

The United Arab Emirates, for instance, shares much of Milei’s economic worldview. With low tariffs, a business-friendly environment, and a GDP roughly comparable to Israel’s, the UAE is ideologically aligned with Milei on many fronts: pro-market governance, a populist political approach, and a shared skepticism toward Iran. It also commands significant lobbying power in Washington and has large technological investments to show for it. Yet the UAE remains conspicuously absent from Milei’s public foreign policy agenda.

This selective focus suggests that Argentina’s pivot toward Israel is not purely about economics or even regional strategy.

The costs of taking sides for Argentina

Over the past decade, the Middle East has seen the limits — and consequences — of ideologically-driven foreign policy. Nations that once framed regional affairs strictly in terms of “us vs. them” have since reversed course after years of diplomatic isolation and strategic missteps.

Turkey’s earlier push to align with popular movements on the Arab street, while distancing itself from ruling governments, eventually left Ankara increasingly sidelined. Saudi Arabia, once willing to impose a full blockade on neighboring Qatar, came to recognize the futility of rigid geopolitical lines — and pivoted toward reconciliation.

Today, most regional players are guided by a more pragmatic logic, prioritizing shared interests and economic cooperation over ideological purity. The shift marks a regional acknowledgment that rigid alignments often yield diminishing returns.

Unfortunately, the Casa Rosada appears out of step with the emerging paradigm in the broader Middle East and North Africa region — despite Argentina maintaining solid trade and diplomatic ties with many key players, nearly all of whom condemned Israel’s wave of attacks when first initiated. That list also includes Brazil, Argentina’s largest neighbor.

You may also be interested in: Milei has claimed the mantle of Judaism. It makes some Argentine Jews uneasy

On the other hand, while much attention has focused on the concerns of Arab or Muslim communities in Argentina, unease also exists within parts of the country’s Jewish population on the domestic level about the new alignment. Some community figures worry about the politicization of their identity and the risk of backlash. In recent years, Jewish groups have emerged whose sole purpose is to publicly disavow this alliance in light of the events in Gaza.

A break from diplomatic tradition

Among Milei’s domestic supporters, Israel also holds symbolic importance. It is viewed as a nation that thrives under pressure, stands up to international institutions, and protects its identity — all themes that resonate with Milei’s anti-globalist, anti-establishment rhetoric.

Still, beyond symbolism, there are limited tangible benefits. Argentina’s trade with Israel is small, and there are no major economic agreements on the horizon. This raises questions about what Argentina stands to gain, materially, from its repositioning.

But for Milei, symbolism matters. Just as his first year in office neared its close, he abruptly dismissed Foreign Minister Diana Mondino for supporting a UN resolution that condemned the United States’ six-decade trade embargo on Cuba. 

In doing so, the libertarian president broke with Argentina’s long-standing voting pattern at the UN, aligning the country instead with a small bloc that includes the U.S., Israel, and a handful of Pacific island nations, effectively placing Argentina in diplomatic isolation on the issue.

Since then, Argentina has remained caught in the same cycle. Most recently, on Thursday, June 12, it was one of the few countries to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza — a measure adopted by an overwhelming majority.

This also breaks with the region’s broader approach and puts Argentina increasingly out of sync with its neighbors.

Whether this new posture serves Argentina’s broader national interests remains to be seen. But what is clear is that a long-standing foreign policy tradition rooted in neutrality and multilateral consensus is being replaced by a more confrontational, value-driven diplomacy.