Strikes on Iran Hurt U.S. Credibility in Latin America
I once sat down in a café in the bohemian neighborhood of Sopocachi, in La Paz, with a soft-spoken Bolivian engineer who had worked with the country’s nascent space agency. Between sips of imported coffee, he spoke matter-of-factly of Bolivia’s emerging capabilities to track criminal groups: how drones could now monitor coca-growing regions, track cartel movement in the Chapare, and support border security missions in the Chaco. When I asked who had helped build these drones, he smiled, paused, and said little. I kept pressing, and he finally uttered: Many of the drones would be Iranian.
Six years earlier, Bolivia’s interim Áñez government was seeking help to fight “left-wing terrorism” from the IDF. Later, Argentine intelligence officials told me Bolivia had effectively become a base for Iranian-sponsored terrorism, helping support Hezbollah and IRGC operatives in the region, responsible for numerous attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets.
These stories underscore that Middle Eastern conflicts, often fueled by foreign intervention, are spilling into Latin America, dragging the region into geopolitical rivalries with often-violent repercussions on its populations.
A lot of Latin Americans are, rightfully, tired of being treated as a battleground for foreign proxy wars. The recent U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran have presented an opportunity for restraint-minded leaders in the region to pull back from the conflict, stress non-military solutions, and call out the U.S. and Israel’s excessive force and escalation in the Middle East.
Presidents Gustavo Petro (Colombia), Lula (Brazil), Claudia Sheinbaum (Mexico), Gabriel Boric (Chile), and Yamandú Orsi (Uruguay) have all issued statements condemning the strikes as an escalation and calling for restraint. Almost all countries in the region have called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Colombia, Chile, and Bolivia have already severed ties with Israel.
Unlike what some hawkish commentators may insinuate, this is not about ideological alignment with Iran. Lula is not some secret Hizballah agent. This regards a growing disillusionment with the West’s highly selective use of international law and norms.
The strikes, viewed widely in Latin America as unprovoked, disproportionate, and based on shaky premises reminiscent of WMDs in Iraq, are seen as part of a broader double standard that includes support for Israel’s aggressive campaign in Gaza and its expansionist posture in the West Bank.
U.S. officials condemn Iran’s role in terrorism abroad while overlooking Israeli actions that violate humanitarian norms, arming reprehensible groups and governments abroad to protect security and economic interests, or pursuing close partnerships with authoritarian states with plentiful evidence of support for terrorist groups, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. The region sees through this quite easily.
Meanwhile, the United States scorns the world, sometimes through force, about human rights, democracy, and international law.
Whether this means that Latin American states, particularly those governed by anti-interventionist figures, now adopt a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, as Lula has proposed, or a more consistent commitment to humanist principle in foreign policy, as Gustavo Petro has attempted to materialize, is where the key debate in the region now lies.
This skepticism is not limited to the usual boogeymen: Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Nearly all Latin American countries, and even some Caribbean countries like Barbados, have issued criticism of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East and changed their posture.
Consistently, when traveling through the region, local diplomats, politicians, and even intelligence personnel share with me that they want to pursue their unique geopolitical path and have serious concerns about the U.S. and Israel’s conduct internationally. Immediately after the strikes, one Brazilian diplomat bluntly told me via WhatsApp, “the Americans and the Israelis can’t just keep doing this and get away with it, they act like the rules don’t apply to them and they can use bombs for every problem. Somebody needs to do something.”
These countries are increasingly drawn to a multipolar order, where China, Russia, or Iran are now considered as viable alternatives to U.S. leadership. The more the U.S. and Israel pursue double standards, the more that criticisms of these alternatives ring hollow.
U.S. interests will suffer as a result. Latin America matters not just as a key energy and trade partner, but as a pillar of Western democratic influence. The United States also depends on regional allies to help contain drug trafficking, manage migration, counter adversarial influence, and support the international norms it has spent decades trying to build up. Losing the trust and cooperation of Latin American governments has profound consequences.
Many Latin American states have historically aligned with U.S. ideals, often under pressure from coups, intimidation, or direct intervention by the American government. Today, those same countries are increasingly turning to alternative strategic partnerships, including with rival powers that offer protection without the looming threat of U.S. military interference. In the long run, this shift will only deepen the region’s estrangement from the U.S.
It has already started doing so, with China now being the top trade partner for many Latin American countries. Many Latin American countries are refusing to sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, others are revising their relationships with Israel, and most of them are signing onto the Belt and Road Initiative and other multilateral partnerships.
The United States and its allies, including Israel, must accept this shifting reality: Latin America can no longer be perceived as a Cold War-era passive bloc that will align unquestioningly with Washington’s worldview.
It is a region with agency, complexity, and growing disillusionment with the sanctimony of Western nations. Attempts to intimidate, isolate, or smear its leaders as terrorist sympathizers for dissenting from escalation will only backfire.
These recent strikes have weakened U.S. influence in a region critical to its strategic interests. By alienating Latin America, Washington risks losing not only trust but also relevance in its hemisphere.
*Joseph Bouchard is a journalist and researcher covering security and geopolitics in Latin America. His articles have appeared in Reason, The Diplomat, Responsible Statecraft, Le Devoir, and The National Interest, among others. He is an incoming PhD student in Politics at the University of Virginia and a SSHRC Doctoral Fellow on Latin American Politics.