From Chile to Mexico, left-wing, anti-Israel, and pro-Iranian politicians have won a series of victories in the past few years, allowing Tehran to expand its influence beyond Cuba and Venezuela, the nations it counts already as steadfast allies. Next week, Gustavo Petro—who in 2020 praised the Iranian generalissimo Qassem Suleimani—will become president of Colombia, while the former Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who presided over the cover-up of Iran’s involvement in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center, returned to power as that country’s vice-president. Oved Lobel writes:

Colombia was one of very few countries in South America to designate Hizballah a terrorist organization and was previously among the staunchest security allies of the U.S. and Israel, all of which is now in question. . . . Brazil, despite its right-wing government and seemingly close relations with Israel and the U.S., refused to designate Hizballah despite years of pledging to do so.

Then there is Chile’s new president, Gabriel Boric, a long-standing and virulently anti-Israel leftist who has openly blamed the local Jewish community for Israeli policies. . . . Peru, too, has fallen to the Marxists with the election of President Pedro Castillo, who some have accused of being a mere front man for the notorious pro-Cuban Vladimir Cerrón, himself seemingly an anti-Semite.

The ultimate nightmare, of course, would be a future transfer of Iranian ballistic missiles topped with nuclear warheads to Venezuela, giving them the reach to threaten the U.S. mainland even without intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The current wave of left-wing governments sweeping Latin America bodes extremely ill for the Jewish citizens of these countries as well as for both the U.S. and Israel politically and security-wise. . . . Even if the terrorism threat can be kept in check, the regional criminal activities of [Iran’s terror] network will likely increase, bringing in more funds to be poured back into military capabilities that will increasingly inch their way closer to the U.S. mainland.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”