On September 3, 2026, Argentine President Javier Milei addressed the nation on the issue of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.
“Las Malvinas son argentinas”
Traditionally, the thesis was voiced about consolidating Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the need for their return. In this context, Milei emphasized that the United States is allegedly already revising its historical position on the islands. According to him, this is be-cause Argentina has come to occupy a more important strategic position and is ready to become a long-term partner and ally of Washington. In addition, the head of state directly pointed out that the United Kingdom will face decline due to economic, demographic and migration crises. Thus, it is implied that in the foreseeable future Lon-don will not be able to ensure control and security of these territories.
Separately, Milei focused on the Sea Lion oil project north of the Malvinas Islands, which is being implemented by the Israeli company Navitas Petroleum (which owns a 65% stake in the project) and the British Rockhopper Exploration (35% stake), pointing out that London is sabotaging the UN General Assembly resolution of 1976 on refraining from unilateral actions in the region, including the exploitation of natural resources. In this regard, the president announced the introduction of sanctions against all companies and individuals participating in oil projects in the territories of “British occupation” without official permission from the Argentine authorities.
Milei paid special attention to the military and defense component. First, it was announced that the resources of the Ministry of Defense would be expanded in order to complete the construction of the Integrated Naval Base in the city of Ushuaia in the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and the South Atlantic Islands, which should become part of the Antarctic Logistics Center (the total cost of the project is estimated at $400 to $500 million, and its completion is scheduled for mid-to-late 2029).
Second, the president presented the draft law “On the Protection of National Sovereignty,” which effectively reforms the National Defense Law of 1988.
The first section of the document is devoted to the Malvinas Islands and their natural resources. The new legal framework tightens liability for unauthorized extraction of all types of resources on the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, including renewable ones (fishing). Sanctions may be imposed both against extracting companies and against those providing financial, logistical and technical services.
One of the key points of the document is the creation of a National Security Council with broad powers. The president will chair the new body, and its members will include the heads of the cabinet, the Foreign Ministry, the ministers of defense and economy, the Secretary of State intelligence (SIDE), and the head of the legal and technical secretariat. The Security Council will assume responsibility for developing and implementing the National Security Policy. In addition, the Security Council must develop a National Strategy for the Security of Critical Infrastructure. The Security Council is granted a set of economic instruments that can be applied in the event of a threat to national security, including raising tariffs for foreign states up to 75%.
The key point raised by Milei in his address is that the protection of the South Atlan-tic is now declared part of the country’s national security. The president recognizes that in the foreseeable future Antarctica will become the main object of competition between major powers for access to natural resources. In this regard, the main task of Buenos Aires is to ensure Argentine supremacy in this territory. That is why it was stated that further actions by the United Kingdom on the islands will be regarded as a direct violation of Argentina’s national security.
Milei’s address on the southern territories became the most comprehensive of his entire presidential term. At the same time, the speech was not declarative but clearly practice-oriented.
Sanctions Pressure and What Israel Has to Do with It
First of all, the Argentine authorities announced the start of a sanctions procedure against 60 individuals and legal entities from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Kazakh-stan, the United States, Canada, the British Virgin Islands, Denmark, the Netherlands and others for participation in illegal hydrocarbon exploration near the Malvinas Is-lands. In total, the Argentine Foreign Ministry sent about 180 warning letters to companies and investors from 30 countries.
It is noteworthy that many companies from Israel were included in the list. In addition to the UK-based Israeli Navitas Petroleum Development and Navitas Petroleum At-lantic Limited, the shareholders of Navitas and Rockhopper also came into the cross-hairs of the Argentine authorities: Shlomo Eliahu Holdings Ltd., Noked Capital Ltd., Mizrahi Tehafot Bank Ltd., Migdal Insurance and Financial Holdings Ltd., Phoenix Holdings Ltd., Meitav Investment House Ltd., Ion Fund Management Ltd, Exodus Management Israel Ltd., Harel Insurance Investments & Financial Services. Among the individuals are members of Navitas management, including Gideon Tadmor, president of the company and a long-time ally of the Likud party and Prime Minister B. Netanyahu.
In addition, the Argentine Foreign Ministry took a rather sharp diplomatic step by summoning the ambassadors of the United Kingdom and Israel to deliver notes of protest over plans to launch the Sea Lion project. Given Milei’s own pro-Zionist position, his government’s actions against an Israeli company operating with British per-mission look contradictory. However, the reaction of Tel Aviv itself raised the most questions. First, the Israeli Foreign Ministry effectively distanced itself from the situation, pointing out that Navitas is a private company and the state does not participate in its activities. Second, an extremely unexpected reaction came from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of the most uncompromising and aggressive de-fenders of Israeli interests. He openly supported Argentina’s claims to the islands and called on Netanyahu to impose sanctions against the United Kingdom.
From this it becomes clear that the interests of the Israeli company do not necessarily coincide with the geopolitical needs of the Israeli government. If the leadership of Navitas sees the Malvinas Islands as an opportunity for profit, then Tel Aviv views them as a tool of pressure on London, with which relations have sharply deteriorated after the British government announced sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River.
Milei’s administration initially sought to place Argentina in the political camp formed around Netanyahu and Trump. The Malvinas issue demonstrates the limits of such rapprochement. However, this does not mean a cooling of bilateral relations between Buenos Aires and Tel Aviv. On the contrary, both sides sought to prevent sanctions pressure on the Israeli company from escalating into a full-fledged bilateral crisis. This suggests that ideological solidarity between the governments of Argentina and Israel is more selective than it seems at first glance.
The Southern Territories as a Tool of Pressure on London and Milei’s Pre-Election “Trump Card”
It should be noted that the situation escalated only after US President Trump announced a possible revision of Washington’s position on the Malvinas Islands. It is possible that Milei’s government regarded this as a call to action and a signal that could not be ignored. However, the true reason for the change in rhetoric by the White House head probably lies not in the ownership of the islands, but in the United Kingdom’s participation in the conflict with Iran. London initially did not support the American-Israeli aggression and limited its military involvement, which caused dis-satisfaction in the American administration. Therefore, such statements were intended to “needle” the British. Therefore, there is no guarantee that Washington is actually interested in recognizing Argentine sovereignty over the islands. In turn, the Milei administration’s bet exclusively on the American position is extremely risky (on the eve of the war with the United Kingdom in 1982, the Argentine junta also mistakenly assumed that the United States would not only not intervene in the conflict but would support Argentina).
On the other hand, the actualization of the southern territories issue is Milei’s preparation for the 2027 election campaign against the backdrop of falling ratings due to austerity policies and the general deterioration of Argentines’ living standards. The first nationwide polls conducted after the president’s address show that a significant number of citizens associate the head of state’s statements with pre-election strategy, since the islands issue still has a consolidating effect.
Thus, the issue of the ownership of the Malvinas Islands is gradually moving beyond a purely regional dispute and involving an increasing number of external actors. Buenos Aires consciously seeks to give this topic geopolitical weight, using Washington’s statements and contradictions in Israeli-British relations. London, for its part, demonstrates a firm intention to preserve the status quo. The steps taken by the Argentine authorities increase the political and economic cost of the British presence, but so far, do not create conditions for its revision. Foreign companies engaged in hydrocarbon exploration are unlikely to abandon their activities in the foreseeable future. In addition, British military potential in the region creates a gap that the Argentine Navy and Air Force cannot yet overcome. Therefore, there are currently no signs of the situation going beyond diplomatic and sanctions escalation.
Mikhail Ilevich, Junior research fellow at the Centre for Scientific and Analytical Information at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
