It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Urges Argentina To Indict Iran Over 1994 Bombing

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:27 PM
Link to Story

Forward March 17, 2006

As part of their campaign to isolate Iran, Congress and
the Bush administration are pressing Argentine officials
and prosecutors to issue a new indictment against Tehran's
Islamic regime for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish communal
center in Buenos Aires, the Forward has learned.

Senior Bush administration officials and congressional
aides recently met with top Argentine political and
judicial officials to urge them to charge Iran's top
leadership with carrying out the bombing, which killed 85
people and wounded more than 300.

The Americans "clearly want to accuse Iran," said Miguel
Bronfman, a lawyer who was briefed on the meetings with
congressional staffers and represents the Argentine Jewish
communal organization, AMIA, that was targeted in the 1994
bombing. An intelligence source familiar with the meetings
between administration and Argentine officials said
America is pressing Argentina to issue arrest warrants for
senior Iranian officials.

Please Visit Link Above For Complete Story

Interestingly, I also found a few older links about this story, although none had the same spin, i.e. "As part of their campaign to isolate Iran."

March 9, 2003, BBC:
Iran denies Argentina blast role

Iran has denied that any of its officials were involved in a deadly bomb attack on a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Its foreign ministry said it would seek talks with Argentina in coming days after a judge there asked Interpol to arrest four Iranian officials accused of involvement in the attack.

Judge Juan Jose Galeano ordered their arrest after Argentine intelligence services linked the officials to the bombing, which killed 85 people.

November 6, 2003
Iran blamed for Argentina bomb

The blast was Argentina's worst terror attack.

A former Iranian secret service agent has accused Iran of planning a 1994 bomb attack on a Jewish cultural centre in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires.

"Witness C" told a Buenos Aires court via video-link from Germany that Iran attacked the centre thinking it was a base for the Israeli secret service.

More than 80 people died and 200 people were injured in the attack.

Iran has denied any involvement in the blast and says the case against it is politically motivated.

August, 2003:
Iran Protests Ex-Envoy's Arrest

Published: August 23, 2003

A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Hamidreza Assefi, reacted angrily to the arrest of a former diplomat, Hadi Soleimanpour, in Britain, saying it was politically motivated and carried out under the influence of Zionists. Mr. Soleimanpour, who was ordered into custody by a London court to face possible extradition to Argentina, was the Iranian ambassador to Argentina at the time of a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people. He is one of several Iranian government officials sought by Argentina for allegedly helping to carry out the bombing. Mr. Assefi said that the case lacked judicial basis and that Iran was going to hold talks with Britain over the arrest. Nazila Fathi (NYT)

I also searched on ATS, but found no links to the story.

I wanted to provide those links above to lend some credence to the source of the top article, albeit not neccesarily with the same spin. But the spin in itself is interesting, especially now with what we know Ron Paul has recently said:

The Iran war is still in the propaganda phase of being sold to the American people.

This brings me to my next point, which is simply that all other circumstances considered, we cannot discount what Mark Perelman has said above in the source article as mere political smearing and Bush bashing. The remarks appear to have some validity, although it remains to be seen the exact extent of which may be true.

But this is not the only evidence of such a campaign:

Legislation that will end US economic aid to any country that helps Iran

In a move that is likely to up the ante between the United States and Iran, already locked in a confrontation, the 50-member US House International Relations Committee voted 37-3 to pass legislation that will end US economic aid to any country that helped Iran by investing in that country’s energy sector or permitted a private entity to make such investment. In 1996, President Bill Clinton had signed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Bill (ILSA), which called for sanctions against foreign companies investing in the energy sector of Iran and Libya. ILSA also barred, through executive order, American oil and gas companies from trading with Iran and Libya. By all indications, the legislation is set to pass through the House easily, though it may encounter some hurdles in the Senate.

Interestingly, it appears that the House Committee pushed the legislation through in the face of State Department objections. According to reports, the administration outlined its position in a letter from the State Department’s legislative affairs chief, Jeffrey Bergner, to the committee’s chairman, Rep Henry Hyde. The department argued that “the legislation would inhibit the administration’s ability to build and maintain an international consensus to confront Iran’s violations collectively ... [and] create tensions with countries whose help we need in dealing with Iran and shift the focus away from Iran’s actions and spotlight differences between us and our allies.” A sympathetic view would be that the House Committee has ignored the executive branch and done its own thing. But that may be too simplistic given the sequence of events. Consider.

So are we beginning to witness the actual propaganda campaign to condemn Iran to war in action here?

Will Bush in the near future carry out his wishes to use bunker busting tactical nukes against Iran, thereby legitimizing a retaliatory nuclear strike on the USA? What? How does that legitimize a retaliatory strike? With the extreme radiation levels that will reach and contaminate not only Iran but so many of the surrounding countries, I can't see how it does NOT legitimize it!

In my view at that point the United States will have killed and upset so many people in the Middle East, not to mention damage their environment for so many years to come, that even former allies will jump ship, and may even oppose us. Militarily. And with just cause.

Oh, you're just being alarmist, TA, shaddup! I might be, but it seems to be coming increasingly clear that Bush is intent on destroying the "axis of evil," no matter what the consequences.

If somehow the world should survive after strikes on Iran, and WW3 does not follow, then of course you know who would be next according to the plan: North Korea. Now you mean to tell me that China and Russia, not to mention all of Europe, are just going to break out the popcorn and watch this all unfold without doing a thing? Well, I will argue that point into next year until I am silenced by the bright white light, and incinerated before I can even utter the words "Stop this maddness now!"

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:14 PM
yes this is start of the propaganda campain it not going to start a war right now in my opinion it could take months or even years of propaganda before iran is attacked becuase irans nuke program is judged to be anywhere between 5-10 years away from being abile to manufacture a warhead.

after iran they will go after syria and the whole thing will start all over again this time claiming syria is manufacturing something whatever the buzzword is in those times right now its WMD even though america is the only country on earth to use nukes on civillains doesnt make a difference to anybody.

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:51 PM
Good find TA. I too believe that very few things make the news by accident. When a given thing is spotlighted, it is done for a reason. Doubly so when the "something" in question happened more than a decade ago.

My analysis would be as follows:

1. The United States is not prepared to invade and control Iran without a draft. I'm usually the first one to step on nay-sayers of American military power; America can deal with Iran, infact we can deal with most threats, but that is not to say that we can sustain the hostile deployment of between 300-500 thousand troops in Iraq and Iran (depending on just how under-strength we are prepared to be over there) in the unproductive excercise of occupying nations for the next 2-3 years without beginning to strain under both economic and man-power burdens.
This, coupled with the upcoming elections, mean that an invasion of Iran is almost unthinkable at present.

2. Airstrikes don't solve the problem of Iran taking oil to Euros, so if that is any part of the motive, airstrikes alone will not be the answer. I see two possibilities for airstrikes:

The first is that we do it in hopes of provoking them to an offensive against the US. We'd clean their clock of course and go to the UN for a resolution to remove their government and have the UN handle to post-war, and we'd be turned down. Then the administration can say "look, those dirty Iranians started a full-blown war just because we blew up their nuclear program, and the UN approves of them doing it"; this would be one heck of a coup for the nationalist/hawk faction of the conservative side in America.

The second is that we let Israel make the strikes and hope (or arrange) that it ends with Israel doing the nuking for us.

3. Nukes: Nuking Iran would be an "if we can't have it, nobody can" play on oil currency. We can't do it before our election. Some would know better if Israel did the deed, but for the most part people aren't into critical thinking so that's the obvious way to go for the powers that be. World War III will not start if we nuke Iran.

There'd be a great big chorus of "how dare you" and a great big response of "tough cookies", and Europe and China would probably then conspire to take us out of the economic loop, to whatever extent they could without causing an all-out collapse here. The people in control must realize that to corner any nation of our size and might, especially one with a nationalist and relatively warlike identity like ours, is a good way to start a war. So instead they'll be trying to keep us cool and undermine us in the coming decades and turn us into Russia, so that we'll be a generation behind them if and when push actually has to come to shove.

4. North Korea is not getting attacked by America, no matter how casual we get about just lobbing nukes at our enemies. There's just no reason to bother. They aren't nuts- they aren't going to destroy us. They have nothing worth taking. They're too deep in China's backyard to be militarily valuable at this point. Now that they've got the bomb, I think it's a dead issue unless they attack Japan or South Korea, and I don't think China wants them to. The first rule of living in Korea is that you can't mess with China.

5. So, all of the above considered, what are we up to? Well, unless we're planning to nuke them, which we could but probably won't in all seriousness, we're probably just trying to make them think that we're coming in hopes of getting a compromise of some kind- or maybe of bringing the issue to a false head this year and then coming back and hitting them later when they don't expect it.

Worst case scenario, we could be planning to lose this one diplomatically and just back off with nothing but bluster, with an eye towards getting a big fat "I told you so" when Iran gets the bomb and becomes a problem. THEN we can nuke them and maybe they'll retaliate against somebody we don't like just to sweeten the bargain.

So yeah, i'm not worried about the nukes flying, and certainly not before November. Probably not ANYTIME before America becomes a police state, and frankly I don't ever see that happening because they're taking us down the purse strings, not the balls.
If we do hit them after the election though, i humbly suggest doing it on December 7th. That's when we entered each of the other world wars- may as well go for 3 out of 3 on the outside chance that I'm wrong about getting away with it.

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:23 PM
Axes Of Evil

Granted, the U.S. may have ulterior motives for wanting to vilify Iran, but does that mean Iran is being falsely accused?

Could Iran, in fact, be behind this bombing and others?

If the allegations are true, perhaps that would explain many things that may otherwise seem difficult to understand.

Conversely, if the allegations are false, that would paint a much different picture.

Does Iran promote international terrorism?

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:10 AM
Thank you Vagabond and Majic for your very thoughtful comments.
Now THAT is ATS, baby!

However, lol, wait! Look at the thread title again!!

U.S. Urges Argentina To Indict Iran Over 1994 Bombing

Now why on earth after all this time would the US want to Argentina to indict Iran for this? Why would the US pull such a subject, seeming out of the proverbial hat, at this time to make public??

The answer to me is now decidedly clear. In today's game of politics and preemptive Bush doctrine, the case for preemption must still be sold well, lest the Fuhrer be censured! And like any product, the key to selling it is damn good advertising. In Iran's case this advertising will likely take place across an entire spectrum of domestic and international accusations, indictments and propaganda such as this right here. Wherever Bush's strategists can dig up a reason, or international assistance to aid in the cause, you can bet it will make news. Anything negative with the name Iran on it, hey- fair game. And that's just the public side.

Covertly, you can bet the bees at the CIA and other factions will be stirring up the honey pot, and preparing their stingers. Rile up the neighbors, pit idealists against infidels, extremists against fundamentalists, and and stir up the brew any way you can. All part of the plan. Incite some bombings, kill a few provincial leaders- hey- we got it all covered. My, what fun.

Aha, but this time a lot more people will be watching.
Meet the wrath of Ignorance Denied! Not this time baby, we are on you.

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:39 PM

I too believe that very few things make the news by accident.

There was never any doubt in my mind that the obvious goal is to turn public opinion against Iran.

The question is why turn public opinion against Iran when we're not militarily prepared to actually stop them from abandoning the petro-dollar short of simply destroying their government and oil fields by nuclear means, which simply are not practical.

Just because Bush squeaked through two elections on the backs of Christian Conservatives (assuming just for the sake of argument that there was no shenanigans, since that's really not the topic anyway) doesn't mean that those people give him carte blanche to do anything. Going nuclear would be political suicide for the family and the party and diplomatic suicide for America, so unless they want to go totalitarian and isolationist it makes very little sense.

I think the reason behind the reason is because America wants to bring this issue to a head and then let it drop for some reason. I don't know if its a matter of buying time or letting the issue die so that nothing clicks with people when something covert happens- whatever it is, I don't think a war is coming, although I've been known to underestimate human stupidity.

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:10 PM
Proper Gander

Originally posted by The Vagabond
There was never any doubt in my mind that the obvious goal is to turn public opinion against Iran.

To the extent a skeptic can not have doubt, I'm with you on this.

There is clearly a propaganda effort underway on the part of the U.S. to vilify Iran.

Of course, there's no shortage of anti-U.S. propaganda -- including plenty of Cold War surplus -- being spewn by Iran and plenty of others as well.

The question I am still left with is whether U.S. animosity toward Iran is undeserved.

Granted, Iran has plenty of good reasons to hate the U.S, but that's a two-way street. Seems to me both countries are very much in each other's business for various reasons, some better than others.

If Iran is conducting operations that are killing Americans (and though I cannot prove it, I strongly suspect it) and planning on upping the ante, I can't say U.S. preemption is unjustified.

Should we really wait for this to go nuclear?

Whatever the case, looks like trouble to me.

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:56 PM
In Argentina there has been plenty of outrage over the bombings for years and anger that nobody has been properly indicted.

There is strong suspicion that there was some major corruption and cover-ups on account of one of the former presidents (Menem) who was basically a Syrian crook.

Politics in Argentina has changed now--for the better.

The fact remains that there was two huge terrorist bombings and it is likely that Hezbollah was involved. The need for justice here is independent of anything else happing wit Iran.

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Majic
Of course, there's no shortage of anti-U.S. propaganda -- including plenty of Cold War surplus -- being spewn by Iran and plenty of others as well.

They're really gonna have to rework some of the old stuff.

As far as deserved... well, I'll never pass an opportunity for a movie quote.
*Clint Eastwood Voice* "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." *BANG*

But to be more serious, I'm a believer in the theory that war is constant, and just only flares to open violence every now and then. Do what you will to win; fine by me. Just mess things up any worse than you absolutely have to in order to win.

We've presumably got a few years till they have the bomb, and I'd set the war option back to maybe half way through whatever grace period we've got before they get it.
In the interim, I'd say bargain (on verifiable conditions), try the UN just for the sake of stroking their ego, and if all else fails try assassinations or a coup before resorting to full on war on that nation and its people. Going to war with Saddam back in 91 ended up being very bad for the closest things to friends that we had in Iraq, so I'd say do whatever we can to target the problem at its root before we go with anything that will have significant fallout, literal or figurative.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm a believer in the theory that war is constant, and just only flares to open violence every now and then.

Vaga, I don't even know what to say to that, but I'm going to try to come up with something! For that statement is just too profound (at least to me) to not say something.


That sentance, as sad as it may be, is undoubtedly true. And really it just goes to show the sorry ass state that humanity STILL finds itself in despite thousands of years of occupying this planet. You'd figure by now we'd all learn how to get along. And until humanity finds some way to do so, I believe that we have no right cosmically to expand beyond this planet. Let this be our prison until we have truely learned unconditional, mutual cooperation among peoples, creeds, races, religions and nations.

I wouldn't be surprised to see all kinds of dirty laundry start to surface soon on Iran, including some new administration spin on the hostage crisis.

new topics

top topics


log in