The Iranian threat in Latin America
The State Department this week is expected to deliver to the House Foreign Affairs Committee a report detailing the extent of Iranian involvement in Latin America. Whether it will be credible remains a large question.
The House ordered the study, and a strategy for countering Iranian influence in the region, based on the premise that Iran represents a “growing hostile presence.” That was based, in part, on information gathered in the 1980s and 1990s showing Iran had built clandestine groups to “sponsor, foster and execute terrorist attacks,” according to an account in The Long War Journal. The 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina that killed 85 is widely believed to have been carried out by the terrorist group Hezbollah, at Iran's behest, The Washington Times reports.
But The Times also reports that the coming study, despite concluding that sympathizers “provide financial and ideological support” to Hezbollah and al-Qaida, suggests there's no evidence of anything deeper. The report concludes that Iran is not supporting active terrorist cells in the Western Hemisphere.
Yet Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., says that just last August, during a visit to Paraguay, local officials told him how “Iranians and their proxy are very active in that region,” a contention watered down by U.S. officials there. Mr. Duncan tells The Times he thinks the Obama administration is downplaying Iran's Latin American influence to “placate” Iran to obtain concession on its nuclear ambitions.
As if wearing blinders to such a threat will make it go away.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Orphan sinkhole
- Work’s the thing
- Confidentiality & carnage: Something has to give
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Netanyahu wins: The message sent
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench