Iran needs to adapt to Latin America’s political shifts

By Delaram Ahmadihttps://newspaper.irandaily.ir/8205/1
Staff writer

As the United States seeks to isolate Iran, Peru has aounced that it will sever diplomatic relations with Tehran, accusing Iran of creating insecurity in the region and disrupting maritime traffic. Chile had earlier closed its embassy in Tehran on security grounds, although the move did not amount to a break in diplomatic relations. This comes as South America is one of the regions where Iran has sought to build close ties. , an expert on Latin America affairs, says that while the scaling back of relations by the two countries will have little economic impact, it carries a significant symbolic message. He says Iran needs to have a plan for maintaining ties with political factions in Latin America so that its relations do not suffer when power changes hands.
IRAN DAILY: To what extent can Peru and Chile’s decision be attributed to US pressure and policies, and to what extent are these decisions driven by the countries’ own considerations and interests?
FARIMAN: Chile and Peru, which have now scaled down their diplomatic relations [with Iran], have both shown a shift toward the right in their recent 2025 elections. In Chile, Gabriel Boric had governed with a left-wing administration for nearly four years. He was essentially a modern, reform-oriented socialist, for whom support for Palestine and opposition to Israel were particularly prominent positions. His successor, José Antonio Kast, who won the election, has shifted toward the United States because he is a far-right politician. On this basis, his foreign policy approach is also based on a commitment to cooperation with the United States and, more recently, Israel.
We see a similar situation in Peru. For years, elections there have essentially revolved around a major contest between conservative right-wing forces, liberals, supporters of the United States, labor unions, anti-socialists, and radical left-wing forces. There is also the main body of the Fujimori family, whose head was president of Peru, and whose daughter has now come to power and wants to establish close relations with the United States.
When it comes to Chile and Peru, it appears that US pressure has had an influence on them.

A brief look at US President Donald Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy, shows that much of its provisions concern the Western Hemisphere. The Americans have made a very clear shift in their approach toward Latin America, which many say is perhaps rooted in the convictions of Marco Rubio. They have made a very fundamental shift gears in their approach to the region, and began their first project with Venezuela.
During Trump’s first administration, the view was that this region was an area that exported crime, drugs and terrorism, and his border wall became well known in this context. In his second term, the cabinet was put together on the basis of being able to fully control the region and bring it back to the Monroe Doctrine. This was because the Americans felt a very serious threat from Chinese and Russian influence, as well as from the Islamic Republic’s influence in the region.
The Americans are now carrying out an economic isolation campaign. Under an aouncement issued by the Treasury Department, the highest level of warning has been issued to all countries to immediately and systematically cut off trade with Iran. On this basis, some countries have responded positively to the call, and countries that are aligned with US policy have taken up the call.

What message do these developments send about the trajectory of Iran’s relations with Latin American countries?
Peru and Chile have not had particularly extensive economic relations with Iran in terms of exports and imports, so the impact is not particularly significant.
What is important, however, is the symbolic aspect of the issue. In other words, the more countries that join in reducing their relations with Iran, the more the Americans will regard it as a kind of victory, because they believe they have further isolated the Islamic Republic.
In reality, the message behind this move is directed at all countries. The Americans view the issue from the perspective of influencing all countries in one way or another so that they essentially reduce and cut their use of the US dollar system in dealings with Iran, thereby placing comprehensive economic pressure on the Islamic Republic.

Given the importance of Iran’s relations with Latin American countries in the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy, what political and diplomatic measures could Tehran put on the agenda to prevent this trend from spreading and preserve its relations with countries in that region? Could consultations with independent governments and those opposed to US unilateralism be effective in this regard?
The countries that remain close to Iran do not have much influence. Cuba is currently in a very unfavorable economic situation and facing severe economic problems. Nicaragua also does not have much economic capacity. As for Mexico, given its participation in the former NAFTA and the current USMCA with the United States and Canada, it is unlikely to have much room for maneuver.
Venezuela, too, has now reportedly entered into a very important oil agreement with the United States, described as a 100-year agreement involving 17 oil fields.
That leaves Brazil, but because it operates within the dollar-based system, it is also unlikely to have that much room for maneuver. Some of these countries may nevertheless be willing to work out barter arrangements. Overall, however, given Iran’s current confrontation on multiple fronts, there is little scope for it to tap into the region’s full potential.
At certain points Iran pursued its relations with Latin America and reached the highest level of relations. There were even efforts to establish a joint bank, extraterritorial cultivation projects, and cooperation in universities and oil facilities. However, apart from some areas of cooperation with Venezuela in the refinery sector, many of these initiatives did not produce results.
One of the advantages of the longstanding democracies in Latin America is precisely their electoral system. They have a highly cyclical electoral system in which a shift toward the right and the left is repeatedly played out, with the exception of certain countries such as Cuba or Venezuela.
Iran, however, has not made the right calculations in this regard. For example, when countries such as Chile, Bolivia or Peru had left-wing governments at certain points, Iran welcomed them very warmly and entered into discussions that even involved investment. Then, in the next elections, those governments handed over power, and the investments failed to bear fruit.
Iran needs to have a proper understanding of Latin American governments so that its relations do not suffer when power changes hands