Last week, an Argentine judge indicted his country’s former president, Cristina Kirchner, for her role in obstructing an investigation into Iran’s responsibility for the deadly bombing of a Jewish center over two decades ago. Now the country’s senate must determine whether to remove her presidential immunity so that a trial can take place. Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz explain what’s at stake:

From 2004 until 2015 . . . the [Argentinian] prosecutor Alberto Nisman tirelessly pursued the truth behind this crime. He knew from his investigation that the attack was an Iranian-planned operation. And he determined that President Kirchner was behind a cover-up designed to whitewash Iran’s role.

What drove Kirchner? Argentina faced deep economic problems at the time, and the financial benefits of closer relations with Iran might have tempted her. Her government also had populist ties to Iran and the Bolivarian bloc of nations led by Venezuela. . . .

When the federal judge Claudio Bonadio handed down the 491-page indictment against the former president, her foreign minister Hector Timerman, her handpicked intelligence chief, her top legal adviser, two pro-Iran activists, and ten others, he didn’t mince words. He called the attack on the Jewish community center an “act of war” by Iran and accused Kirchner of covering up the role of senior Iranian leaders and their Hizballah proxies in exchange for a trade deal. . . .

Three years ago, Nisman was set to testify to the country’s congress on Kirchner’s role in the cover-up. The day before his testimony . . . he was found dead in his apartment in Buenos Aires, with a bullet in his head. This, despite the fact that he had a ten-man security detail paid to protect him. . . . In a normal democracy, investigating the murder of a man like Alberto Nisman would be a top priority. But Kirchner and her allies assured that justice . . . was stymied for years.

Before exploding electronics in Lebanon seized the attention of the Israeli public, debate there had focused on the Philadelphi Corridor—the strip of land between Gaza and Egypt—and whether the IDF can afford to withdraw from it. Egypt has opposed Israeli control of the corridor, which is crucial to Hamas’s supply lines, and Egyptian objections likely prevented Israel from seizing it earlier in the war. Yet, argues Mariam Wahba, Egypt in the long run only stands to lose by letting Hamas use the corridor, and has proved incapable of effectively sealing it off:

Ultimately, this moment presents an opportunity for the United States to hold Egypt’s feet to the fire.

To press Cairo, the United States should consider conditioning future aid on Cairo’s willingness to cooperate. This should include a demand for greater transparency and independent oversight to verify Egyptian claims about the tunnels. Congress ought to hold hearings to understand better Egypt’s role and its compliance as a U.S. ally. Despite Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s nine trips to the Middle East since the start of the war, there has been little clarity on how Egypt intends to fulfill its role as a mediator.

By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security concerns, Egypt is undermining its own interests, prolonging the war in Gaza, and further destabilizing its relationship with Jerusalem. It is time for Egyptian leaders either to admit their inability to secure the border and seek help from Israel and America, or to risk being perceived as enablers of Hamas and its terrorist campaign.