Checked, you’re right. Thank you. Keeping fact straight is a Sisyphean task. Part of the battle against the narratives. All narratives!

As to Argentina, its modern history is a shame.
A text book case of mucking with the software and destroying all the good they had achieved … We are going their way …

At the time of his death, Nisman was probably THE expert on Iranian activity in South America, not only in Argentina. I’m amazed that the story is getting almost no attention in US media.

Something that isnt being mentioned but is very important: Cristina Kirchner’s husband, former president Nestor Kirchner had appointed Alberto Nisman himself to investigate the AMIA terrorist attack of 1994.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Soon after that Nestor Kirchner dies unexpectedly, supposedly due to a heart attack.

From a recent edition of the NYT:

The 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association is considered the worst terrorist attack in Argentina’s history. In 2005, Nisman was appointed by then-President Nestor Kirchner, Fernandez’s husband, to revive the floundering investigation. He requested arrest orders be issued against several Iranian officials, including a former president and foreign minister, which an Argentine judge agreed to do in 2006. Interpol later put most of them on its most-wanted list.

Nestor Kirchner appointed Nisman in 2005, but his death was 5 years later, in 2010, which is not so “soon after.” Which does not disprove suspicions of hanky panky regarding Nestor’s death, but points out Nestor Kirchner didn’t die “soon after” he appointed Nisman.

The funeral was public but with a closed coffin. This is extremely unusual given that politicians in South America (and most of all Peronist ones!) turn funerals into political statements.

Yes, it is unusual to have a closed coffin funeral for such a leader, and yes, it was closed coffin.

I appreciate the interest shown. As I used to work in Argentina, and drink yerba mate daily, I have more interest in Argentina than the average reader.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/10/argentina_bids_farewell_to_a_p.html

Make no mistake. The terrorists guilty for the attack are long gone and the only thing left was proof of the president’s cover up and associating with terrorists. This is why Cristina Kirchner has Alberto Nisman killed the day before he testifies in front of the National Congress.
As Cristina Kirchner said herself not long ago.”One should only fear God… and me”…
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2015/01/argentine-prosecutor-found-dead-hours.html

Because they are ruthless, evil murdering savages? Just a guess.

Those are good arguments you make.

Why would Iran do it on its own? Iran knows that it has a friend in Obama who can do it great favors. However, Iran may have calculated that what Nisman would reveal at the trial would result in too much domestic US pressure on Obama to take a harder line on Iran.

Or simply Iran doesn’t want its machinations made public, and has decided to punish those who make them public. For example, I have read that Nisman had extensive information on Iran’s Hezbollah network in South America. [Which doesn’t surprise me, given what I read years ago about Paraguay’s Ciudad Del Este, which is near Iguazu Falls and borders both Argentina and Brazil.] Someone who is going to reveal that deserves, in Iran’s estimation, some negative consequences.

As I see it, Iran had as much to lose as did Evita III.

From what I have read of Evita III and her husband, while they were leftist Peronistas back in the day, they did not join the terrorist Montoneros. Yes, they sympathized with the Montoneros- else why would they have put former Montoneros into their administration? However, it appears they stopped short of joining them. Evita III and Nestor remind me of SDS stalwarts back in the day who talked the radical talk but stopped short of joining the Weathermen. They weren’t willing to personally bomb and kill for the cause, though they may have sympathized with those who did.

While Evita III is underhanded, and has no problem with stretching the law and violating the law to maintain or augment her power, I doubt she has the makeup to order someone to kill on her behalf. Steal, yes. Break the law, yes. But killing, that may be something else.

It is possible that Evita III may have made some offhanded remark along the line of “Who will rid me of this meddlesome prosecutor?” We all know how that turned out for King Henry.

It is possible that Iran figured that it was doing a favor for Evita III- a favor that she didn’t request.

Will we ever know who did it? Most likely not.

However, why would Iran do it? They’re known to support terrorists and terrorism, so the fact that they’re implicated in the Argentinian attack and coverup would hardly even be worth murdering Nisman over, would it? Doesn’t it seem that it’s Kirchner or someone associated with her who had much more to lose by Nisman’s revelations?