For many opponents of the Iranian regime, the death of Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman on Sunday brings into sharp focus the danger of pursuing a self-serving agenda in dealing with Iran. On the surface, Nisman’s death looks like a suicide, but many believe that he was killed either by the Argentinian government or by agents working on behalf of Iran, in order to prevent him from presenting evidence the following day of a cover-up related to the 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association building.
Nisman alleged that the government of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez had struck a deal with Iran, offering to prevent any Iranian perpetrators of the bombing plot from facing criminal charges in Argentina in exchange for access to cheap Iranian oil. Nisman’s files specifically named several Iranian figures who would be held to account for the incident. In a rundown of the Nisman case on Thursday, The Daily Beast shared this list, which includes former Iranian President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani.
As the Times Union put it on Thursday, Nisman’s death “shields Argentine leaders who treated the AMIA attack as a dreary diplomatic inconvenience rather than state-sponsored mass murder.”
Opponents of the Obama administration’s dealings with Iran fear similar impulses to downplay Iranian crimes, and indeed some of those opponents have explicitly described Obama’s policies as “appeasement.” The Times Union also notes that this situation has been made possible by the fact that Iran has escaped its pariah status but has not actually given up its support for global terrorism.
The article notes that within this situation, regardless of who is responsible for Alberto Nisman’s death, the Iranian regime benefits from it. That is, it helps to keep the truth buried about the extent of Iran’s violent past, allowing it to continue to engage with traditional enemies like the United States.