The project presented by Deputy Eduardo Valdés, calling for Argentina to remain neutral in any military escalation with Iran, has once again sparked a deep debate on foreign policy, institutional limits, and national security. In strictly constitutional terms, the reminder of Congress's powers has a legal basis, yet Valdés overlooks that Iran has carried out two attacks against Argentina and that Milei has not declared war on the Persian nation. The Kirchnerist movement also carries another international burden that resurfaces whenever its figures attempt to lecture on foreign policy: its ties with the Chávez dictatorship. In other words, the most controversial Kirchnerist pact with Iran was not only politically challenged but was ultimately nullified by the judiciary. The scope of the problem grows even larger when examining the underlying case. This year, the Milei administration declared the Quds Force and subsequently the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorist organizations, adding them to the Registry of People and Entities linked to Terrorism (RePET). While the tone of Milei's foreign policy can be debated, it must also be said that the deputy speaks from a political tradition that has left a difficult legacy to defend when it comes to Iranian terrorism, cover-ups, and alliances with authoritarian regimes linked to drug trafficking. Over the years, former Chavist leaders like Hugo Carvajal have made even more serious accusations of irregular financing for Kirchnerist campaigns. Some of these claims remain under investigation and controversy rather than resulting in firm convictions, but the overall picture has left a lasting political mark: the closeness between Kirchnerism and Chavism was never just an ideological link, but a relationship fraught with shadows, suspicions, and episodes of transnational corruption. It is within this tension that the Argentine debate moves today: between a firm stance against those who attacked the country and the re-emergence of voices that, in the name of prudence, seem to forget too quickly who they negotiated with in the past. The Kirchnerists then presented the memorandum as a tool to unblock the AMIA case, but the reaction from Jewish organizations was unequivocal. AMIA and DAIA, as victims and complainants, stated that the agreement did not contribute to truth or justice and took their rejection to the courts. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Argentine Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran was signed in 2013 and approved by a Kirchnerist-Peronist majority through Law 26.843. In 2007, a Venezuelan businessman attempted to enter Argentina with nearly $800,000 undeclared, and later U.S. prosecutors maintained that there had been a maneuver by Venezuelan agents to conceal the money's origin and destination. For a significant portion of Argentine society, this double standard remains impossible to ignore. To this clash of memories and responsibilities is added the present. The UFI-AMIA had already maintained that the attack was conceived and planned by those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran and executed by the terrorist group Hezbollah. In this context, Valdés's discourse on the need for 'dialogue' with Iran sounds, to many, too close to a political tradition that for years preferred diplomatic deals over calling things by their name: terrorism. The problem does not end there. The government also recalled that Ahmad Vahidi, one of the Iranians wanted in the AMIA case, has an Interpol red notice but was promoted within the Iranian apparatus instead of being extradited to justice. In 2024, the Federal Chamber of Cassation held Iran and Hezbollah responsible for the attacks on the AMIA and the Israeli Embassy, qualifying these acts as crimes against humanity. The lawmaker argued that the Executive branch cannot commit the country to a war without congressional authorization and questioned Milei's alignment with the United States and Israel. In 2014, the Federal Chamber declared the memorandum unconstitutional, and in 2015, the Cassation Court upheld that decision. The Antonini Wilson suitcase case became one of the emblems of that era.
