Yes, it would be a very good opportunity. In fact, there are some lawsuits being talked about, particularly by victims of Hezbollah and Hamas, which are directed by Iran. Remember, too, Iran hasn't only talked about this. Everybody in the world now knows that Iran's fingerprints are all over the terrorist attacks that took place in Argentina years ago. There's absolutely no doubt about that. There have been admissions, findings of fact. They blew up civilian and diplomatic enterprises, killing dozens and dozens of people. So in addition to talking genocide, they've been trying to carry it out in retail fashion. Victims, particularly U.S. victims, can sue in U.S. courts, and there have been some lawsuits. I would say there have been mixed results around the country, but there have been some successful lawsuits brought by my colleague Nathan Lewin, his daughter, and some other lawyers in the United States. These lawsuits have been brought by victims of terrorist acts for which Iran is responsible.
I'm not aware of any civil suits brought against Iran or Ahmadinejad for threats of genocide. That's much harder to do. You have to show actual damage to bring a civil lawsuit, and preventive civil lawsuits are difficult. Now, they exist. For example, you can bring a lawsuit against a spouse who has threatened you and get a protective order or an injunctive order.
So there is equitable relief that could be obtained in courts of law. But this is really a new area, and a new jurisprudence is needed. As somebody who is prepared to work with other people, countries, and NGOs, I offer myself to try to help develop this new jurisprudence of prevention, which could be used to prevent genocides instead of merely responding to them after they occur.