On the sidelines of the summit of the Mercosur trade bloc in the first week of August, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez held a joint press conference with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva during which she made a statement that should be warmly welcomed.

Fernandez stated that, despite her country’s legal issues with Iran, she welcomes Brazil’s efforts to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program and believes the Tehran declaration helps promote peace and dialogue.
She said the allegation that Iran was responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) building is the source of the legal dispute between the two nations.
Carlos Menem, who is of Arab descent, was the president of Argentina at the time. His presidency marked one of the darkest chapters of Argentina’s political history.
Menem allowed Israel and the United States to shape his character and greatly influence Argentina. His policies held back Argentina both politically and economically and made it one of the most indebted countries in the world.
Under Menem, Argentina suffered such a political setback that the country literally fell into the hands of imperialism and the Zionist regime and was forced to withdraw from the Non-Aligned Movement. In the first Persian Gulf War, Argentina, in alliance with the United States, sent warships to the region. It became an ally of the arrogant powers and was turned into a Trojan horse serving U.S. interests in most Latin American alliances.
Menem later wrote an article which was published in La Coruna newspaper admitting that he did all that to appease Israel and that he was rewarded for it.
Shortly after the AMIA bombing, he said the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible, and his statements were welcomed by Bill Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yasser Arafat, who believed they could finalize the peace process in the Middle East.
Menem’s actions helped the Israeli and U.S. lobbies lay a foundation of mistrust and discord between Argentina and Iran that continues to this day.
In fact, innocent blood was shed to serve the interests of Israel and the United States. And the Argentine judicial system, instead of pursuing the real culprits, was tricked into conducting an investigation that would never produce any results.
Whether we like it or not, these problems continue to dominate the Iran-Argentina relationship, which has been about a century in the making.
However, the two states have many political and trade commonalities.
Trade between the two countries stands at 1 billion dollars, and as far as foreign policy is concerned, both countries are opposed to unilateralism. The two countries also have similar positions on financial issues and international financial institutions.
In short, the two developing countries have a lot in common, but the legacy of Carlos Menem has kept bilateral relations at the level of charge d’affaires for 16 years.
Why can two countries that have so much in common not bridge their differences logically? Is there a third factor at play? Argentina claims that some Iranian expatriates had a hand in the AMIA bombing, a charge that Iran strongly denies, saying the misleading actions of Argentina’s former government violated the rights of Iranians and Muslims and thus the Argentine government is responsible for the problem. But despite this bone of contention, can the two nations restore their relations to the previous level and even boost their ties?
There are many countries in the world that maintain good relations despite their differences. A good example would be Britain and Argentina. Britain attacked Argentina in 1982 following the dispute over the Malvinas Islands. Over 600 Argentines were killed and many Argentine soldiers were captured. Some parts of Argentina’s territory were occupied, and Britain began conducting exploratory drilling offshore from the Malvinas after some experts said there might be up to 60 billion barrels of oil under the sea bed surrounding the islands.
Most importantly, the Argentines were humiliated and Britain still takes pride in its actions. However, Argentina looks at this matter as a legal issue and seeks to expand ties with Britain.
Iran, according to its foreign policy doctrines, has always supported Argentina with respect to the issue of the Malvinas Islands. But unfortunately, the Argentine government has not backed up Iran in the international arena in a similar manner.
From a historical perspective, President Cristina Fernandez’s remarks sound reasonable in the current political situation, and the two countries can now try to thaw their icy relations. The two states have many mutual interests and can strengthen their ties, despite their differences.
We, the developing countries, should learn that we can continue our historical relations based on mutual respect, regardless of our differences. Iran and Argentina cannot ignore each other, just as Iran and Brazil, two powerful countries in two important regions of the world, have not ignored each other and enjoy constructive relations based on mutual respect.
It may be the case that one particular lobby in Argentina is opposed to the expansion of ties between Iran and Argentina and is attempting to undermine their bilateral relations. But Argentine officials must surely be aware that a lobby, however powerful, is just a lobby and pursuing its policies will not serve the national interests of a great country like Argentina.