When the United States and Israel struck Iranian targets, much of the world reacted with caution or criticism. Governments across Latin America called for restraint, warned against escalation, and emphasized diplomacy. Yet one country responded differently. Argentina—located thousands of miles from the Middle East—stood almost alone in the region supporting the operation.

This divergence reflects a deeper question in international politics: why do many countries hesitate to support military action against Iran even when they distrust the Iranian regime?

Most governments separate two questions that outside observers often assume are identical: whether a regime is dangerous, and whether military force should be used against it.

Across much of the world, states answer yes to the first question and no to the second. Argentina has chosen a different path.

In Latin America, foreign policy has long been shaped by a strong commitment to sovereignty and non-intervention. Countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Colombia reacted to the U.S.–Israel strikes by emphasizing diplomacy, warning against escalation, or questioning the legality of preventive military action.

This posture reflects historical experience. For much of the twentieth century, Latin American states lived under the shadow of great-power intervention and geopolitical rivalry. As a result, defending the principle that military force should not be used without clear legal justification became a central element of regional diplomacy.

Argentina’s response emerges from a different historical experience—one that few countries outside the Middle East share.

In 1992, a powerful bomb destroyed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. Two years later, the AMIA Jewish community center was attacked, killing eighty-five people and injuring hundreds. The AMIA bombing remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentine history.

For Argentina, the event was not an abstract geopolitical episode but a moment when international terrorism reached the heart of its own capital. Investigations conducted by Argentine authorities concluded that the operation had been carried out by Hezbollah with the involvement of senior Iranian officials.

More than three decades later, the wound remains open. The suspects have never been tried in Argentine courts, and the search for accountability has become part of the country’s political and moral landscape.

In this sense, Argentina does not see Iran only through the lens of Middle Eastern geopolitics. It sees Iran through the memory of an attack that killed Argentine citizens on Argentine soil.

Argentina’s experience is not entirely unique. Iranian-linked violence and terrorist networks have appeared in several other countries, though rarely with the same devastating consequences.

The United States has been the target of attacks carried out by groups supported by Iran. In 1983 a truck bomb destroyed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen. The attack was carried out by militants connected to Hezbollah, the Lebanese organization created with Iranian support during the early years of the Islamic Republic.

Another major attack occurred in 1996, when a powerful bomb struck the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, which hosted American military personnel. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and hundreds were injured. American investigators later concluded that the perpetrators belonged to a militant network trained and supported by Iran.

In addition to these attacks, security agencies have uncovered attempted operations linked to Iranian or Hezbollah networks in several countries. In 2012 a bomb exploded on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, killing five Israelis and a Bulgarian driver. European investigators concluded that the perpetrators were members of Hezbollah’s military wing.

Authorities in Cyprus, Thailand, Germany, and the United Kingdom have also uncovered cells gathering intelligence on Israeli or Jewish targets. These plots were disrupted before they could be carried out, but they revealed the existence of transnational networks capable of planning attacks far beyond the Middle East.

In the United States itself, federal authorities in 2011 uncovered a plot involving individuals linked to Iranian security services who were allegedly planning to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The plan was stopped before it could be executed.

Yet even within this broader pattern, Argentina occupies a singular position. Unlike the foiled plots uncovered in other countries, Argentina experienced two devastating attacks on its own soil. The scale of the AMIA bombing transformed the event into a defining moment in the country’s political memory.

The legacy of the AMIA bombing also raises a deeper question: when does waiting for violence to occur become irresponsible?

International law generally assumes that force should be used only after an armed attack has taken place. The principle exists for good reason. It seeks to limit the destructive cycles of preventive war that have often destabilized the international system.

Yet countries that have experienced terrorism organized from abroad sometimes interpret the problem differently. For them, security is not an abstract legal principle but a concrete responsibility toward their citizens. Argentina’s posture toward Iran reflects this tension.

Argentina’s reaction to the confrontation with Iran therefore reflects more than a diplomatic choice. It reflects the enduring impact of an unresolved tragedy.

For most countries, the confrontation with Iran remains a geopolitical problem unfolding far away. For Argentina, it is also a reminder that the violence of the Middle East has already reached its own capital once before.

The memory of the AMIA bombing continues to shape how Argentina understands security, responsibility, and the risks of waiting for threats to mature. That history helps explain why Argentina stands apart from much of the world in its reaction to the current crisis.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)