By: Matthew Wearp
Last month, it was reported that the United States government is actively pressuring Bolivia to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group and expel individuals it suspects of being spies for Iran. On the one hand, States are encouraged, and increasingly expected, to cooperate in the fight against terrorism, which also raises other questions of international law, such as state sovereignty. On the other hand, the pressure on Bolivia reflects longstanding U.S. concerns about Iran’s growing presence and influence in South America.
Although Iran is most often associated with regional conflicts in the Middle East, its activities in South America have raised increasing concern among U.S. officials. Iran’s presence in South America is not new. Over the past few decades, Iran has been cultivating alliances and gaining influence throughout the region. Iran has often targeted countries led by left-wing parties and has fostered relationships with ideologically aligned actors to limit the United States’ political and military influence in the region.
Iran’s principal ally in South America has been Venezuela; the pair have formed an alliance that has provided Iran a base of operations only a short distance from the United States and opportunities to build military cooperation, evade sanctions, and circulate Iranian proxies across Latin America—all under diplomatic cover. Following President Trump’s decision to capture and transfer Nicholas Maduro, the former dictator of Venezuela, for trial in the United States, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear that the move was part of a broader strategy to ensure Venezuela can “no longer cozy up to Hezbollah and Iran in our own hemisphere.”
Consistent with this regional strategy, the United States is now pressuring Bolivia to curb Iranian influence within its borders. In September, Ecuador designated the IRGC a terrorist organization, and Argentina followed suit in January of this year. Although this push to counter Iranian and Hezbollah influence in South America is not new, these recent developments reflect a renewed and increasingly coordinated U.S. effort to counter Iranian influence across the region.
But the request from the United States also raises questions under international law. While it is true that the United Nations has urged and promoted international cooperation to fight terrorism and has adopted numerous resolutions on States binding obligations to “prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts,” its leaders also consistently reaffirm the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all States.” Even if the United States’ long-term goal of ending the influence of terror groups in the region is reasonable or well-intentioned, the manner in which it achieves this goal will be scrutinized. For example, some legal scholars and even foreign governments have already criticized certain U.S. actions, particularly the operation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In their view, such unilateral acts raise serious questions about well-established notions of state sovereignty and international law. As defined by the United Nations and international law, state sovereignty holds that each nation retains authority over its own territory, free from external coercion. If external pressure from Washington goes beyond persuasion, such as threatening military action or coercing policy changes under duress, it may constitute unlawful coercion under customary international law.
Although decisions such as whether to designate groups as terrorist organizations or to expel individuals suspected of being foreign spies ultimately remain matters of sovereign discretion, Bolivia’s response to U.S. pressure could serve as a major factor in shaping its future regional alignment: closer cooperation with the United States or continued engagement with Iran and its allies. Whatever the case, the United States has made clear that countering Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere is a strategic priority and that it will likely use all diplomatic, policy, and military tools at its disposal to win the ongoing geopolitical battle.
