There is a new deal brewing between Argentina and Iran in order to improve relations between the two counties which have been on shaky ground ever since the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and the Jewish community headquarters (AMIA) in 1994. Though Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, was widely believed to have perpetrated these two attacks no individual has ever been brought to justice. However, Argentina issued arrest warrants and orders of extradition for several high officers in the Iranian government given their involvement in the attacks.

In January 2013, Argentina reversed course and signed a memorandum of understandingwith Iran that deals directly with the terrorist attack on the Jewish headquarters but omits the attack on the Israeli Embassy.

The memorandum encourages the creation of a “Truth Commission” composed of international jurists who would analyze documentation that exists about the case. That commission would be composed of five members: two selected by Iran and two by Argentina. These four members could not be either Iranian or Argentinean and would have to have internationally recognized credentials. The fifth member would be appointed by agreement between the two countries following the same criteria.

The commission would examine the evidence and documentation, would request additional information as needed, would interrogate people and finally would issue a report and recommendations.

To say the least, this agreement is riddled with potential problems. For example, Iran has already refused to allow its Minister of Defense, Ahmad Vahidi who is one of the suspects, to be interrogated. This statement was issued despite the fact that the Argentinean government affirmed that Vahidi would indeed be interrogated. In addition, Iran then accused Israel of having been responsible for the attack against the Jewish community headquarters because Israel wanted to gain more influence over the Argentinean government.

As I pointed out in another article, to think that the Iranians might acknowledge their role in the terrorist attacks in Argentina or agree to extradite those accused by the Argentinean justice ministry is ridiculous. In fact, it is unlikely that this bilateral dialogue would even be taking place were it not for the influence of the Bolivarian government of Venezuela on that of the government of Cristina Kirchner.

That alliance is not merely an alliance of convenience that depends on Venezuela’s largesse towards Argentina. It is an ideological and symbolical alliance as Chavez has become a symbol of leftist domination in the region. In the mind of the Argentinean president, Iran is not merely the perpetrator of the most atrocious terrorist attack on Argentinean soil but one of Chavez’s closest allies and an enemy of the United States. Why should Argentina adopt a U.S. enemy as its own? This would mean accepting subordination to the giant of the North.

At this point the agreement has been approved by the Argentinean Senate and now will go for discussion in the House of Representatives.

But the government of Cristina Kirchner, in the midst of criticism by Argentinean Jewish organizations and the State of Israel, responded with the typical arrogance, hostility and intimidation that have characterized her.

The President of the Argentinean Jewish umbrella organization (AMIA) pointed out that if there is compromise with Iran there might be a third terrorist attack against an Israeli or Jewish institution. His thinking was that a compromise might give Iran a sense of impunity and such impunity might encourage another terrorist attack.

However, Cristina Kirchner instead of responding to this argument, tried to intimidate the Jewish leader by publicly asking him to reveal what he knows about a third terrorist attack.

Ms. Kirchner added that “it is clear that the potential authors of that third terrorist attack cannot be those countries that have signed the accord. Who would be responsible for a new attack? Which countries, individual or intelligence services? Would it be those who oppose these agreements?”

The gravity of such a remark is not only that the president’s purpose was to put the Jewish leader on the defensive. Such words by the Argentinean president also fit Iran’s propaganda that Israel (or Jews) perpetrated the terrorist attacks in the early nineties.

Kirchner has insinuated in an aggressive form of rhetorical question that it might be the Israelis or the Jews who might plan a third attack to sabotage the agreements.

But this is not the end of the story. The Argentinean president and her allies have been very disturbed that Argentinean Jews were exercising their democratic right to oppose the agreement. Thus, they fired their venom right away.

The chairman of President Kirchner’s “Front for Victory” faction in the Senate, Miguel Angel Pichetto, pointed out that the “Israeli hard-liners create fear; this is why they keep refuting Palestine. They not only operate in Israel but also in Argentina”. Pichetto also stated during his closing speech in the Senate that the “terrorist attacks in the early 90’s in Argentina killed “Argentinean Argentineans and Argentinean Jews”

This problem is very serious. The current government of Argentina has taken a problematic posture towards its Jewish citizens and towards the State of Israel.

First, Argentina, in general, has not yet solved its own Jewish question.

Historically, virulent Anti-Semitism has existed in Argentina; particularly in the Armed Forces (including in many of its multiple military governments), the police, the Catholic Church, and elements within the Peronist Party, and of course in countless Neo-Nazi and fascist groups. However, even in some important elements of the mainstream, Jews are still being questioned whether their Jewish identity does not contradict their national identity. This exists, despite the fact that Jewish immigration is as old as the massive Italian and Spanish immigration to the country in the late 19 and early 20th century. Jews have contributed extensively to the industrialization, commerce, culture, science, academia, medicine and liberal professions. In fact, if Jews were to be removed from Buenos Aires, the capital and largest city in the country, the glamorous and vibrant city would not look the same at all.

Yet, Argentinean society has not been able to lift the Jewish community and accept its distinctive Jewish identity as being compatible with its national identity. Pichetto’s words reflect a deep rooted nationalist tradition and a sentiment in a large sector of Argentinean society that both identities are not compatible.

But Kirchner also adds the element that has characterized the extreme and moderate left in Latin America: The question of Israel.

The government of Argentina has held Israel responsible for the failure of the peace process in the Middle East, despite the fact that Israel offered far reaching compromises at least on three occasions and on all of them the Palestinians rejected these without providing acceptable alternatives.

The Palestinians as well as the Arab and the Muslim world are seen as part of a third world by the Latin American “New Left”. Therefore, finding a common ground between Latin America and those countries is important. That principle constituted the basis for the South-South relations promoted by Brazil, in particular. Iran is also part of this world.

Israel is seen as powerful and its enemies are seen as weak, despite the fact that Israel had to work very hard to overcome its lack of natural resources and a geographical periphery plagued by hostility. However, the view of the Latin American left continues to view Arab/Muslim countries as poor despite the oil wealth of many of these nations including Iran. If they are poor, it is because these countries have a colonial past or are exploited by a powerful western center whose wealth derives from this exploitation.

This would be the typical view of many of the pseudo-intellectuals that populate now much of the media and intellectual public life in Argentina. These are the same people that worship Kirchner as they worship Hugo Chavez. These “masters of ideas” do not necessarily ask the question why these countries are so oppressive. However, they see the rebellion against Assad’s tyranny not as a fight for liberation from an oppressive regime but as an American and Western act of incitement. (See previous “Americas Report” article on the intellectuals here).

The Argentina-Iran agreement is nothing but a political act with two main objectives. One is to normalize relations between the two countries and put them on firmer ground by getting past the terrorist attacks without any real resolution. The second is to humiliate the United States. This agreement is not only a reflection of the attitudes of the Argentinean Government but also seems to reflect attitudes adopted by many Latin American countries dominated by leftist ideology which now can be seen in their conduct of foreign policy.


Deja tu Comentario

A excepción de tu nombre y tu correo electrónico tus datos personales no serán visibles y son opcionales, pero nos ayudan a conocer mejor a nuestro público lector

A fin de garantizar un intercambio de opiniones respetuoso e interesante, se reserva el derecho a eliminar todos aquellos comentarios que puedan ser considerados difamatorios, vejatorios, insultantes, injuriantes o contrarios a las leyes a estas condiciones. Los comentarios no reflejan la opinión de, sino la de los internautas, y son ellos los únicos responsables de las opiniones vertidas. No se admitirán comentarios con contenido racista, sexista, homófobo, discriminatorio por identidad de género o que insulten a las personas por su nacionalidad, sexo, religión, edad o cualquier tipo de discapacidad física o mental.
Artículo anteriorTermina Benedicto XVI su pontificado, inicia sede vacante
Artículo siguienteThe real meaning of the new Argentina-Iran agreement

Luis Fleischman is also an adjunct professor of Sociology and Political Science at the Florida Atlantic University Honors College and FAU Life Long Learning Society since 2005 where he has taught courses on history and sociology of Democracy, the Middle East, Political Sociology, American Conservative Thought, the Politics and Sociology of Rogue States, and Latin America.

He has also served as Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County. (JCRC) since 2000 and prior to that as director of the JCRC at the Jewish Federation of Central New Jersey.

In that capacity, he has worked intensively on issues related to the Middle East and national security serving as a liaison between these organizations and members of Congress, the state legislature, foreign consuls, the media, and the local community at large. Within that role, he has dealt with issues related to the threat of a nuclear Iran, advocated for the security of the State of Israel, sanctions against Iran, and issues related to domestic terrorism.

He is also in charge of developing relations and programs with the community at large including interfaith relations, African-American/Jewish relations, activities, Hispanic/Jewish relations and Muslim/Jewish relations.

Fleischman has also served as an academic advisor on Latin American affairs and hemispheric security to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Washington DC-based Center for Security Policy. Luis also serves in the Security Task Force of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami.

Fleischman holds a Ph.D. and a M.A degree in Sociology from the New School for Social Research in New York, and has a B.A. degree in Political Science and Labor Studies from Tel Aviv University. He has published journalistic and academic articles and written policy papers on a variety of topics, including the theoretical aspects of civil society and state, Latin American affairs, the Middle East and terrorism. He is currently writing a book on Contemporary Latin America and regional security and he is the co-chair of the Spain and Latin America task force of the group Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He is currently owrking on a book that deals with national and regional secuirty challenges in Latin America.