Over at a private journos' listserv I'm on, we've been arguing this morning about whether or not if Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was some sort of chief to interrogators of some US hostages held in Evin prison in 1979 even matters. I can't believe that it doesn't, but mostly for a debate occurring internal to the Bush administration more than anywhere. US-Iranian (lack of) relations have been long been driven in part by an element of emotionalism, not pragmatism. A big part of the emotional approach comes from the history of US-Iranian relations, including the trauma of the Iranian seizure of the US embassy in Tehran and the ensuing hostage crisis that even those who were young children at the time can remember, in particular the moment they were released minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. Indeed, the Iranian hostage crisis can arguably be said to have impacted the outcome of the 1980 US presidential election itself. Clearly the Bush administration has been torn internally over the past several years over how to deal with Iran -- between those who think the US should come to some sort of pragmatic arrangement with Tehran and those who think the US should push for democratic regime change (not through invasion but through suppport to democratic forces, and perhaps some covert funny business on the side). To my mind, those arguing for the US backing regime change have just seen their hand grow stronger, if there's credibile evidence that the new leader of Iran -- however symbolic the position -- is well known to the former American hostages as the boss of their Evin prison interrogators. Then again, as one of the other people on the list pointed out, some of the current crop of Iranian dissidents the US is interested in getting to know also played leading roles in the Revolution, and some people suggested Rafsanjani might have been acceptable to work with had he won the presidency. But those dissidents have renounced their former activities, and Ahmadinejad could hardly can hardly be seen as a dissident. What do you think, are Ahmadinejad's current positions the only thing that matters? Is the whole issue irrelevant? More from Democracy Arsenal's Michael Signer.

Posted by Laura at July 1, 2005 01:53 PM