Under Argentina’s New Government, There Won’t Be Justice for Alberto Nisman, or for the Victims of Iranian Terror

In 2015, the Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was close to concluding his investigation into the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish center (AMIA) by Iranian operatives. But he was found dead the day before he was supposed to report to the country’s congress on his findings that high-ranking government officials, including then-President Cristina Kirchner, now the vice-president—covered up Iran’s responsibility for the bombing. Benny Avni writes:

Kirchner and her supporters in the press quickly spread the notion that Nisman committed suicide—a strange act for a man about to make public a case marking the culmination of his life’s work. Consequent investigations completely demolished the suicide theory. . . . During the presidency of Kirchner’s successor, Mauricio Macri, the suicide theory was widely discarded.

[Meanwhile], a documentary series on Nisman’s death, widely distributed on Netflix, tries to present both as possibilities. The six-part series claims to show “all sides”: Kirchner acolytes insist on the suicide theory while others maintain he was murdered. That is, both flat-earthers and scientists are given equal time.

Macri, [whose presidency lasted from 2015 to 2019], tried to end the charade. . . . During his tenure, Kirchner and others were indicted on coverup charges. But Macri is [now out of office] and she is vice-president, and as such immune from incarceration. Worse: in February the judge assigned to continue Nisman’s investigation into the terrorism cases . . . passed away [and] Kirchner loyalists were named as successors.

So it looks like the government is set to wind down the AMIA investigations. The Iranian masterminds, Hizballah operatives, and Argentine collaborators will not be brought to justice. Kirchner is protected from any accusation of complicity in Nisman’s death. Any hope of closure for terror victims’ loved ones is fast fading.

Read more at New York Sun

More about: Alberto Nisman, AMIA bombing, Argentina, Iran

An American Withdrawal from Iraq Would Hand Another Victory to Iran

Since October 7, the powerful network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq have carried out 120 attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. In the previous year, there were dozens of such attacks. The recent escalation has led some in the U.S. to press for the withdrawal of these forces, whose stated purpose in the country is to stamp out the remnants of Islamic State and to prevent the group’s resurgence. William Roberts explains why doing so would be a mistake:

American withdrawal from Iraq would cement Iran’s influence and jeopardize our substantial investment into the stabilization of Iraq and the wider region, threatening U.S. national security. Critics of the U.S. military presence argue that [it] risks a regional escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. However, in the long term, the U.S. military has provided critical assistance to Iraq’s security forces while preventing the escalation of other regional conflicts, such as clashes between Turkey and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Syria.

Ultimately, the only path forward to preserve a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Iraq is through engagement with the international community, especially the United States. Resisting Iran’s takeover will require the U.S. to draw international attention to the democratic backsliding in the country and to be present and engage continuously with Iraqi civil society in military and non-military matters. Surrendering Iraq to Iran’s agents would not only squander our substantial investment in Iraq’s stability; it would greatly increase Iran’s capability to threaten American interests in the Levant through its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Read more at Providence

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy