From the US, Milei ratified his support for Israel, attacked Iran, and condemned the global wave of antisemitism.

Javier Milei addressed antisemitism, the conflict in the Middle East involving Iran, and his alliance with the United States during a speech at the Argentine embassy. Before this event, Milei met with US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright to discuss the bilateral relationship. The event was organized by the International Alliance for Remembrance of the Holocaust (HIRA). During Milei's address, he referenced the massacre of Jews following October 7, 2023, and discussed a renewed wave of antisemitism in Western democracies, suggesting that Israel's defense is a matter of self-preservation. Other participants included foreign ministers from Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, US special envoy against antisemitism, and several ambassadors. Milei emphasized that defending Israel is a question of both justice and self-preservation against hatred, noting that antisemitism seeks to undermine Western values by targeting Israel as a bastion. Several attendees affirmed Argentina's role in fighting antisemitism and defending Israel as a priority of its foreign policy.

The discourse frames the conflict not merely as geopolitical disagreement but as a struggle over fundamental existential values, where the security of one entity is inextricably linked to the safety of another. The argument pivots on framing the defense of Israel as both a moral imperative (a just cause) and a pragmatic necessity for self-preservation against hostile ideologies spreading across Western democracies. The pattern observed involves channeling severe historical trauma (the Holocaust) into contemporary political conflict, suggesting that historical memory is positioned as the necessary foundation for present-day geopolitical action. The invocation of "antiseSemitism as the canary in the coal mine" suggests a framework where internal moral decay is signaled by external hatred directed at national and religious entities. The tension lies between acknowledging legitimate security concerns and managing the rhetoric used to frame these concerns, particularly when opposing forces employ moral panic or blame. A critical question arising is whether this insistence on defining defense through existential necessity inadvertently risks hardening boundaries against broader humanistic dialogue. What mechanisms can be developed to address the systemic propagation of hatred that Milei identifies as originating from hostile external forces rather than solely internal ideological shifts?