In the theater of global politics, history has an unsettling way of replaying itself, sometimes with the same characters, sometimes with new faces carrying old mistakes. Today, as Argentina grapples with inflation, austerity, and an unpredictable political experiment under President Javier Milei, we are reminded of a cautionary tale from another time and another continent. The United States, under Donald Trump’s returning influence, appears ready to repeat the blunder Lyndon B. Johnson made with Iran’s Shah: the belief that funneling money and uncritical support to a precarious leader is enough to secure stability. It was not then, and it will not be now.
Argentina is a nation of immense wealth and tragic cycles. From beef and wheat to lithium and oil, the country has resources that should make it prosperous. And yet, decades of mismanagement, corruption, and debt dependency have left its economy chronically unstable. Inflation spirals so fast that wages become obsolete within weeks. Ordinary Argentines live in a state of permanent improvisation, clutching pesos they don’t trust, seeking dollars they can’t afford, and hoping for leaders who rarely deliver. Into this storm walks Javier Milei, the chainsaw-wielding libertarian economist who promised to slash the state and liberate the market. For many, he is a political arsonist. For others, a last gamble. For all, he is an experiment.
Trump, ever eager to see himself reflected in disruptive leaders abroad, has embraced Milei as a kindred spirit. Both men thrive on shock politics; both speak the language of anti-establishment fury, and both promise simple solutions to complex problems. But what Trump risks missing, perhaps deliberately, is that economic crisis in Argentina is not a puzzle to be solved by dumping dollars or making high-profile endorsements. It is a social wound, a historical scar tissue, a matter of trust and sovereignty.
This is where the ghost of the Shah returns. Johnson, and later Nixon, believed that pouring money into Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s regime would keep Iran stable, modern, and firmly in America’s orbit. Oil revenues were high, military contracts soared, and Washington toasted its Persian partner as a model of progress. But beneath the glitter, resentment grew. The Shah’s detachment from his people, his failure to distribute wealth equitably, and his repression of dissent built a fire that no foreign dollars could extinguish. When it finally erupted, Ayatollah Khomeini emerged, not as a marginal voice but as the embodiment of popular rage. America’s money had propped up a brittle illusion. When it shattered, the consequences were seismic.
The comparison is not perfect, Argentina is a democracy, not a monarchy, and Milei is an elected figure, not a hereditary ruler. Yet the lesson still applies: financial lifelines from abroad can never substitute for legitimacy at home. They may even make things worse by tethering a government’s survival to external patrons instead of internal consent. If Milei fails to translate his radical rhetoric into credible reforms that improve daily life for Argentines, no amount of Trump’s cheerleading or dollars flowing through international channels will prevent disillusionment from boiling over.
And make no mistake: disillusionment in Argentina is dangerous. This is a country that knows how to mobilize, how to protest, how to resist. From the Peronist machine to the piqueteros in the streets, from unions to neighborhood assemblies, Argentine society is not passive. When promises collapse, the backlash is swift. Trump may imagine Milei as an ally in the global populist wave, but he should recall that waves crash hardest when they find shallow ground.
There is also the deeper irony. Milei rose to power on a promise of independence from the failed recipes of the past, especially those imposed by international lenders and external powers. He mocked the traditional establishment, railed against the weight of bureaucracy, and presented himself as an uncompromising truth-teller. To now watch him lean on international recognition and potential financial backing from figures like Trump is to watch the same cycle repeat: external endorsement masking internal fragility. This is precisely what makes the Shah analogy so chilling. Money can keep appearances alive, but it cannot hide the rot beneath the palace walls.
The question is not whether Argentina deserves or needs external support. Of course it does. Every economy is connected, and partnerships matter. The question is whether support becomes dependency, and whether it blinds both the giver and the receiver to the real problem: trust between government and citizen. If Argentines believe Milei is governing for foreign approval rather than domestic well-being, he will not survive politically, no matter how many lifelines are extended his way.
This is the essence of Johnson’s mistake with the Shah. He believed that alliances could be bought, that loyalty was secured through funding, and that people’s grievances could be silenced by military might and consumer goods. He failed to grasp that legitimacy is not transactional. Once lost, it cannot be purchased back. Iran’s revolution was not simply the fall of a monarch; it was the collapse of a strategy that mistook dollars for destiny.
Today, as Trump positions himself once again as a global influencer, he faces the temptation to reenact that mistake. Milei may flatter his worldview, but Argentina is not a stage for ideological theater. It is a nation of 46 million people who have endured crisis after crisis, each time hoping the next leader will be different. If the United States treats Milei merely as a pawn in its populist game, it risks pushing Argentina deeper into volatility. And volatility in Argentina has a way of spreading across Latin America, reshaping alliances and reopening old wounds.
The mirage of money is seductive. It offers quick fixes, symbolic gestures, the illusion of control. But mirages vanish when approached. Argentina does not need another Shah, and the world does not need another Khomeini moment. What it needs, what it has always needed, is respect for its people’s ability to decide their own fate, and leaders who understand that legitimacy cannot be imported, only earned.
Trump may think he is helping by cheering Milei and perhaps channeling resources his way. But unless Milei delivers something more tangible than slogans and austerity, Argentina’s people will decide their own correction and it may not be the one Washington or Buenos Aires expects. History warns us of this. It is up to us to listen.
No comments:
Post a Comment