It is quite common for financial institutions to freeze an IRA account, file an interpleader action, and allow the court to determine the claimants' rights so that there is no double payment; indeed, interpleader actions are common even where a claim seems frivolous. New Jersey law as to the right of a spouse to claim under an augmented estate theory suggests that interpleader may be appropriate as an action by the IRA custodian.
Each beneficiary might want her lawyer's information and advice about whether a treaty might allow a desired tax treatment.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/united-states-income-tax-treaties-a-to-z
Assuming the individual is not an HCE (or that the plan sponsor is a governmental entity and therefore exempt from nondiscrimination rules), how about adopting a discretionary amendment before end of plan year stating that this named individual does not have the 6-month suspension in 2019?
Then the fiduciary administrator is required to interpret the plan. That effort will take more into account than is included in the post. Based on the post only, my vote (which counts for nothing) is for no loan because the minimum is not satisfied. I could argue that a $1000 loan is allowed, and that would be a reasonable outcome, too.