I have a question regarding whether the Israeli Embassy bombing in 1992 and the Jewish community centre bombing in 1994 would still have taken place in Buenos Aires, or even at all. If they didn't take place in Argentina, would they have taken place in either Brazil or Chile?
These countries, along with Bolivia, those in the Middle East, and perhaps Spain as well, would have received a larger amount of Nazi war criminals after World War II than they did OTL. This is simply because Argentina would not have been the centre of the ex-Nazi network in South America (due to there being no Peron and his cronies in Argentina to do that because of Argentina being a steadfast Ally during World War II). After all, countries like Brazil and Chile have had large German populations just like Argentina.
I'm thinking Brazil as a possibility for such terrorist attacks to take place in, because Brazil has a lot of corruption just like OTL Argentina (though not nearly as much institutional anti-Semitism), and Brazil is next to the Triple Frontier, has a large Arab community, and has had rather close ties with Iran (again, just like OTL Argentina). Chile, as far as I know, hasn't been as corrupt as Brazil or OTL Argentina, but has had some institutional anti-Semitism (though not as bad as in real-life Argentina) and was nearly as sympathetic to Nazi Germany as real-life Argentina, and a branch of the Arab terrorist network based in the Triple Frontier opened up a number of years ago in Iquique (in Chile's north).
If attacks took place in 1992 and 1994 in Brazil, my guess is the Israeli Embassy in Brasilia and a Jewish community centre in Sao Paulo, respectively. If in Chile, there would have been just an attack in 1992 on the Israeli Embassy, due to the relative lack of corruption lessening the likelihood of both a bungled investigation and a prolonged heightened state of insecurity.
How does any of that sound?