By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Everything appears to make sense.
September 2009: President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner used the UN stage to demand the Islamic Republic of Iran hand over five officials who were the subject of Interpol “red notices” due to their alleged role in the 1994 AMIA Jewish community centre bombing.
Argentina’s president didn’t spare criticism of the Holocaust denial by her then Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“Once again, perhaps, the president of Iran will deny historical tragedies that the West has suffered during the twentieth century,” Fernández de Kirchner said before the General Assembly. Later, in line with the Israeli delegation, Argentine diplomats left the room when Ahmadinejad began his speech.
Back then, the Kirchners acted in line with Alberto Nisman, the late prosecutor who followed the investigative leads inspired by the now-ousted intelligence chief Antonio Stiusso. Iran was everybody’s suspect — the Israeli government, leaders in the Argentine Jewish community and the US Embassy all saw Tehran as the main guilty party of the 1994 atrocity.
September 2010: Back in New York, the Argentine president shifted, proposing that Iran analyze the possibility of holding trial against the suspects in a third country.
September 2012: Same yearly appointment in Midtown Manhattan. CFK asked Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi to begin the negotiations toward a bilateral agreement that would unlock the investigation, which would include a truth commission and the chance to question suspects in Tehran.
The 2009-2012 strategy shift was abrupt, but the Argentine government had a point. The complaint at the UN had become a useless annual ritual while the AMIA case was mired in a swamp.
AMIA special prosecutor Nisman had long made the “Iranian connection” his top priority — at the expense even of the local connection. But any criticism about the investigation can also be levelled against the government, which had fully endorsed the probe. Even in December 2010, when US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks described Nisman as guided by the Embassy in Buenos Aires, the Pink House didn’t dare remove him from office, and CFK had a case.
Once the change in official strategy became obvious, the prosecutor abandoned the president’s umbrella in 2012-2013. Nisman, however, was not left alone. Israel, the US Embassy, the leadership of the Jewish community and almost all the opposition spectrum backed him in his opposition to the agreement with Iran.
Without much more to contribute to the main proceedings, the Antonio Stiusso Intelligence industry began to accumulate hours of eavesdropping. The staunch Kirchnerite Luis D’Elía, other leaders and alleged spies were heard exchanging epithets and claiming that they represented the Pink House or the Iranian clerics.
January 14, 2015. Prosecutor Nisman accused CFK, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and other officials of orchestrating a “criminal conspiracy,” “a pact with terrorists” to cover up those responsible for the attack in the neighbourhood of Once. Nisman released a summary of his accusation and began leaking details to the press. Beyond predictable pour la galerie political reactions, lawyers, analysts and opposition leaders showed a cautious approach to Nisman’s complaint. The evidence seemed weak, but since it wasn’t fully disclosed to avoid violating the Intelligence law, there was room for something greater — the secret aspects of the complaint became essential.
January 17. Nisman spent the day preparing for the “informal” presentation before a congressional committee headed by opposition lawmaker Patricia Bullrich (PRO), with whom he spoke to several times that week. Both emphasized that the hearing on Monday would be secret, while the ruling party tried to push for it to be publicly broadcast.
January 19, 00:08: BuenosAiresHerald.com reporter Damián Pachter tweeted that the body of fiscal Nisman had been found in a pool of blood and he wasn’t breathing.
The shocking news triggered a chilling hypothesis that even influential global analysts agreed with.: The Argentine government used the murky intelligence services to eliminate the man who was about to prove its complicity with Iranian terrorists.
January 20: Federal judge Ariel Lijo released Nisman’s complaint after figuring out that no Intelligence Secretariat agents were mentioned in the complaint.
Meanwhile the president and her staff began sending out hypotheses about murder or suicide, suspects, inconsistencies and strange details. It has been said many times in this newspaper — the Executive branch is entitled to defend itself and explain its arguments but not to imagine guilt aloud, even less blaming with unproven data. Rather than appear as guarantor of a serious investigation, the Presidency collides with itself, including the ineptitude of those community managers running the @CasaRosada account.
Everything makes sense. A prosecutor who accused the head of state dies under mysterious circumstances. The Executive, which has tolerated, backed and worked with intelligence agents operating beyond the democratic framework — like every government did in some way since 1983 — appears as a clear suspect.
Everything makes sense but... Nisman’s complaint seems groundless according to lawyers, pundits and legal sources. The evidence is weak and its assumptions of impunity for Iranians not only didn’t become true but they were also contradicted by the US official who led Interpol between 2000 and 2014. Nisman’s timing for filing of the charges isn’t easy to understand either — years of repetitive telephone wiretaps, which led to an urgent return to the country from Europe. More than dead, the government needed Nisman alive to challenge his arguments.
Federal judge Ariel Lijo has been given the floor. Lijo, with whom the prosecutor had filed the complaint against Fernández de Kirchner, the foreign minister and others, understands the concept of political timing. He is not exactly a Pink House ally, but unlike some of his colleagues, he wouldn't rule based on nothing. Maybe the decision to dismiss the complaint, transfer it to another court, downsizing the seriousness of the allegation — has been made. The question is when it will hapen.