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........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)