Self-Sufficiency Is Iran's Resistance Factor / Javier Milei's Deep Ties With Israel

An Argentine university professor identified self-sufficiency as a key factor in sustaining Iran's resistance and addressed Argentina's stance on the war against Iran.

Ambassador of Arjan International Group - Azar Mahdovan: In a situation where the world's public opinion is still facing the fundamental question of whether the tension between Iran and the United States will once again lead to a full-scale war, or whether the path of diplomacy can prevent a new conflict, the future of this crisis has become one of the most important issues of attention in political and media circles. In the meantime, the developments in the Strait of Hormuz, the military and economic costs of the confrontation, the deterrence power of Iran and the positions of regional and extra-regional actors have taken the dimensions of this confrontation beyond a bilateral conflict.

But in order to understand the future, it is not enough to simply consider the possibility of a resumption of war or the resumption of negotiations. The main question is, what change has the recent confrontation brought about in the calculations of Washington and Tel Aviv, to what extent has Iran been able to resist military and political pressure, and what will be the consequences of this crisis for regional order and international relations?

In this context, Mehr's reporter conducted a conversation with Professor Fernando Stichi, a thinker and professor at the Faculty of Journalism and Communication at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, which you can read below:

Considering Donald Trump's recent statements about the possibility of resuming the war with Iran, and at the same time continuing efforts to negotiate and reach an agreement, how do you evaluate the current approach? Do you think the increase in war costs can lead Trump to negotiate and agree with Iran, or will he still pursue the military option?

Trump will eventually negotiate, but he will likely take another military action first so that he can frame a potential deal as Iran's capitulation to the American public. This impression can be seen from his statements in October; Where he says that the issue will be resolved either peacefully or by resorting to force, and also mentions November 3rd as an important date. He is negotiating while his attention is also focused on the US mid-term elections.

Rising war costs push Trump to the negotiating table. The Pentagon has announced that the cost of the war has exceeded $33 billion as of June. Brown University's estimate also shows that the American people have incurred about 100 billion dollars in additional fuel costs. Meanwhile, only 17 percent of people are satisfied with Trump's performance in managing the cost of living.

Trump started the war without congressional authorization, promised the conflict would last only a few weeks, and ended up doing the opposite of the slogan that brought him to the White House: avoid new wars. Now the split in the "MAGA" movement is also revealed.

America cannot reopen the Strait of Hormuz by relying solely on military force; Unless it resorts to a massive ground operation that will be very difficult for Washington to sustain and support. This situation is a sign of the decline of American hegemony: a power that still has the power to destroy, but is faced with limitations in imposing its will.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu is one of the main opponents of any agreement. He needs the continuation of the war to maintain his political position and is trying to pressure Washington to close the path to a negotiated agreement.

How do you evaluate the resistance of the Iranian people during the 40-day war and the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian armed forces? In your opinion, what effect did these two factors have on the war equations and calculations of America and its allies?

Iran's resistance thwarted Washington and Tel Aviv's plan to remove the country's leaders and collapse its political structure. The leader of Iran was assassinated and the CIA also tried to organize Kurdish militias; But the result, contrary to the expectations of the designers of these measures, was strengthening national cohesion and forming a united front inside the country; A process that even included parts of the government's opponents.

The West has once again equated Iran with its government; While Iran, above all, is a nation with a deep historical memory. The people of this country have not forgotten the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh and the eight-year war with Iraq, when different powers supported Saddam. The attack on the Minab school also provided the grounds for national solidarity and increased support for the government by provoking public anger; An event that no internal advertising campaign alone could create.

The Strait of Hormuz also changed the nature of the war. Iran did not necessarily need to directly use its navy to disrupt traffic in this waterway. Low-cost drones and missiles threatened shipping, and in early March London-based insurance companies canceled war risk insurance coverage. In this way, insecurity and insurance restrictions practically disrupted maritime traffic, and the war was dragged from the military arena, in which America is superior, to the economic arena; An area in which Washington has serious vulnerabilities.

These developments dealt two blows to America. First, Washington's allies did not take the initiative to participate in the naval alliance desired by Trump, and Europe and Japan refused to send ships. Second, the Persian Gulf kingdoms realized that hosting US military bases does not necessarily guarantee their security and could even expose them to attacks.

Meanwhile, Iran's crude oil exports to China continued and related payments were made outside the dollar system. Now, Qalibaf has conditioned the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the acceptance of the seven clauses of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. From my point of view, this situation shows that Tehran still plays a central role in determining the conditions related to the Strait of Hormuz.

Self-reliance has been one of the main axes of the national security strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in recent decades; An approach that has been followed both in the military and diplomatic fields. Considering the experience of the 12-day war and the 40-day war, how do you evaluate Iran's self-reliance? In your opinion, to what extent has this strategy been able to maintain Iran's resistance and decision-making independence against the pressures of America and Israel?

Self-sufficiency is one of the main factors for the continuation of Iran's resistance. This country, which during the war with Iraq was facing problems even to provide spare parts for its planes and has passed four decades of embargo, came to the conclusion that technological dependence can lead to political dependence. For this reason, he made the development of the domestic defense industry one of his priorities.

Iran's Ministry of Defense has announced that the country's military production has doubled between the 12-day war and this year's war, and the level of self-sufficiency has reached more than 90 percent. On the other hand, some Western analysts believe that airstrikes have seriously damaged Iran's military capabilities. However, Iran continued to fire missiles during the 40-day war, even after the assassination of its commanders, and its missiles were able to pass through Israel's defense systems in the Dimona area.

Seven months later, America continues to send its aircraft carriers to the region. This shows that Washington still considers Iran's military power to be a serious factor in its calculations; However, sending aircraft carriers alone is not enough to assess the amount of damage caused to Iran's arsenal.

The same logic of self-reliance can be seen in the field of diplomacy. In order to continue the war and pursue negotiations, Iran did not depend on the direct entry of Russia or China into the conflict and followed its diplomatic path through the mediators it had chosen. First Pakistan and then Qatar.

Tehran has also tried to define its negotiating priorities: first the issue of the Strait of Hormuz and then the nuclear issue. In this framework, Iran is trying to determine the agenda of the negotiations, and America is also forced to adjust its positions in response to these priorities.

Javier Milli, the president of Argentina, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of America and Israel in the war against Iran. From your point of view, to what extent is this alignment an ideological and personal choice on Milli's part, and to what extent does it represent a permanent change in Argentina's foreign policy? Can this approach put Argentina in a conflict that goes beyond the country's direct interests, and what consequences will it have for the position of Buenos Aires in Latin America and its relations with the countries of the global south?

This approach has both ideological and structural roots. Xavier Milli has a personal and intellectual connection to Israel, partly due to his closeness to the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic Jewish movement. On his trips to New York, he has made it a regular ritual to visit the grave of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the spiritual leader of this movement. Rabbi Axel Vanish, Milly's spiritual guide, is also one of the influential figures on her; The person whom Mili appointed as Argentina's ambassador to Israel.

These religious and belief tendencies explain a part of Mili's strong positions; From expressing satisfaction with Khamenei's assassination to describing Trump and Netanyahu as heroes of humanity.

However, Argentina's alignment with the world's dominant powers is not a new phenomenon. The ruling classes of this country have always tried to strengthen their relations with the hegemonic power. Carlos Menem also sent Argentine warships to the Persian Gulf in 1990.

What is important today is the simultaneousness of this trend with the American effort to reorganize its presence in the American continent, the so-called "Donro" plan and the competition for strategic resources, including lithium and vital minerals. The establishment of a naval base in Ushuaia, holding exercises with the Nimitz aircraft carrier, Argentina's request to become a global partner of NATO, and the inclusion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the list of terrorist organizations can all be examined in the context of this orientation.

The risk of Argentina being dragged into this conflict is serious. Pablo Quirno, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of this country, did not rule out the possibility of sending a ship to the Persian Gulf, and Milli also called Iran an enemy of Argentina. The experience of the 1990s should serve as a historical warning to Buenos Aires: Argentina took one side in the Persian Gulf War and then witnessed terrorist attacks on its soil in 1992 and 1994.

At the regional level, Milli is no longer alone. Washington is forming a coalition of right-wing governments in Latin America that, in addition to the United States, are aligned with Israel. From my point of view, this process helps to weaken the independence and collective power of Latin America; That too, in a situation where the world's movement towards a multipolar order has provided new opportunities to strengthen national sovereignty and the independence of countries.

The consequences of this policy for Argentina's relations with the Global South are also significant. Milli's government refused to join BRICS, sided with the US and Israel in the UN vote on slavery and reparations, expelled Iran's ambassador and faced off against a host of countries that included China, Argentina's second largest trading partner.

Milli has repeatedly emphasized that Argentina's alliance with America and Israel is based on common values; But critics believe that this policy makes Argentina more dependent on Washington. Will Milli's unconditional support of the American-Israeli war against Iran not weaken Argentina's strategic independence in the long run?

Yes; This process is still ongoing. The emphasis on shared values ​​has in practice become an ideological cover for political affiliation; A dependence whose effects can be seen in the decisions of the Argentine government.

The issue of the Malvinas Islands, which Britain calls the Falklands, is a clear example of this contradiction. The "Sea Line" oil project in the waters around these islands, over which Argentina claims sovereignty, is being developed with the participation of British and Israeli companies. In this way, Israel, which Milli calls a brotherly ally, participates in the exploitation of regional resources, whose sovereignty is still disputed.

Trump's reference to the possibility of changing the US position on the Malvinas Islands also has no clear support. The United States supported Britain in the 1982 war, and London remains one of Washington's closest allies in NATO.

This dependence is not only limited to foreign policy, but also manifests itself in the economic and financial fields. The US Treasury Department's financial support for Argentina in 2025 was linked to the country's election results; A topic that Trump also spoke about publicly. When a government accepts that foreign financial support is tied to the outcome of elections and its internal political developments, its decision-making independence is limited.

Strategic autonomy, in the political tradition of Juan Peron, means making decisions based on national interests and expanding relations with diverse partners; Not exclusive dependence on a foreign power.

With lithium reserves, oil and gas resources in the Vaca Muerta region, which are extracted by hydraulic fracturing, territorial claims in the Antarctic and a wide sea area in the South Atlantic Ocean, Argentina has a significant capacity to play an independent role in the international arena. Such a country should be able to negotiate with Washington, Beijing, Moscow and the countries of the Arab and Persian world based on its national interests and expand its relations with a diverse range of powers.

But Milli has chosen another path: tying Argentina's strategic future to a single power and accompanying it in a war that is not directly related to Argentina's national interests.