I think it would be surprising if Ahmadinejad were not involved in the embassy takeover to some extent. Many Iranians who were of the appropriate age and politically active at that time took part. I think Khatami's brother took part, and so did the dissident Nobel Prize winner Ebadi. But there is a large difference between attending and yelling at some rally and actually participating in interrogations.

If Ahmadinejad were actually a reformist, this would probably have made any sort of rapproachment between the US and Iran harder (although the US has dealt with people like Khatami and the MEK who were involved in the takeover before). Given that he's a hardliner, it probably doesn't make that much difference to US-Iran relations, which are practically non-existent anyway.

Fortunately, it shouldn't be that hard to determine whether he was actually involved seriously, and we don't have to rely on the assertions of hostages (sincere as they are) on events that happened 25 years ago, or on the denials of some Iranians actually involved (although they claim to be dissidents now). Old state department and intelligence files, old newspaper reports and the like should allow us to get a reasonably certain answer on his involvement.

As to the larger question of whether he's actually serious about reform, and whether he can carry it out if sincere, I don't think anyone outside of Iran's most inner circles knows. We know that there have been numerous power struggles in the clerics in the past, and this could be a sign of more, or it may not. We just dont' know, and I don't think Western intelligence knows much better.

OK.
Even if it is true, I really don't see why the media and the right side of the blog sphere has there pantys bunched up about this.

I would assume that being a participant in the overthrow of the "American Puppet" regime and the taking of American hostages would be a plus for an Iranian politician. Just as being an Zionist fighter in Isreal, or perhaps one of the guys dressed up as indians tossing tea into Boston harbor was benificial to the participants.

I mean big whoop. He is now the PM, so we need to deal with him as PM.

As for dealing with scared cows of the clerical establishment... If they are really scared to the clerics nobody in Iran has a hope of challenging those cows, whether he interrogated hostages, or road through the country side on horseback proclaiming the revolution!

Im starting to think this entire Iranian farce is just another weird way in which George Bush's enemies ultimately hand him the keys to their own undoing. If the Mullahs would have put a reformer and a moderate up as their front man puppet, they could much more easily play the games with the Euros that they have perfected. Instead they have brought matters to a head, and its going to be increasingly difficult for Europe to wink, nod, and appease the Iranians. Iran cant put on the mask of a progressive Muslim state beset by an agressive US when their president is out preaching worldwide revolution. Moreover I think that this has fixed Bush's mind, the nation that supports most of the worlds terrorism and has a hostage taker as its frontman must never be allowed nuclear weapons. If there was any wavering over this in the presidents head before, I think his mind is now made up.

Ahmadinejad may have been approved by one faction of the mullahs, but not the other. The fact that he seemed to get a mandate has probably strengthened the hand of the faction backing him.

As for his possible involvement in the hostage crisis, there are indeed several examples of world leaders who initially had umm .. doubtful backgrounds: Ben Bella, Jomo Kenyatta, Menachem Begin, Arafat, even Mandela. So in itself it doesn't matter much except for propoganda purposes, but certainly it makes the possibility of deals on the nuclear front harder. The fact that the majority of Iranians seem to back Iran's pursuing its nuclear program makes it even harder.

As far as the US goes, it makes little difference at the actual level, since our options are still as limited in Iran as before. Maybe the threat of sanctions will work, but China. India etc. are not likely to go along.

" George Bush's enemies ultimately hand him the keys to their own undoing. "

The Great Leader in North Korea seems to have learned enough not to do that (i.e. not to believe Bush when he says that war is the last resort). The only thing that will deter Bush is real, not fictious WMDs, apparently.

I'm with you Mark. An Iranian regime that lets the mask slip is easier to confront directly. What I don't care much for is the "gee, hold on a minute while we check him out" attitude of our Govt on this guy. As though they're not holding onto a stack of documentary evidence of his involvement with the hostage-taking (or, less likely, disproving it). It makes our intelligence services look incompetent (how hard is that, right?) and the administration look either stupid or coy/deceptive. Why not just SAY, "Yeah, the Ahmadinejad was involved, we have proof, and we challenge anyone to take him seriously as the elected leader of 'free' country that just happens to be about to go nuclear." Why the games?

As for his potential to be a "reformer", I wonder what the likelihood of a fanatical, ascetic Mullah being in favor of capitalism and free markets, technological innovation and a peaceful integration into a global community would be. Anyone? Anyone? If he is a "reformer" it's almost certainly along the lines of a Robespierre, which I don't think is what Iranians want or need right now.

Buehner, that is, not "M".

In America, we'd just call it a "youthful indiscretion".

What I don't care much for is the "gee, hold on a minute while we check him out" attitude of our Govt on this guy. As though they're not holding onto a stack of documentary evidence of his involvement with the hostage-taking (or, less likely, disproving it). It makes our intelligence services look incompetent (how hard is that, right?) and the administration look either stupid or coy/deceptive.

If he was a relatively minor functionary in the taking, they would not necessarily know. Also most of those documents are probably pretty old in any case.

As for his potential to be a "reformer", I wonder what the likelihood of a fanatical, ascetic Mullah being in favor of capitalism and free markets, technological innovation and a peaceful integration into a global community would be. Anyone?

I think its clear he's not in favor of capitalism and free markets. He's also not a Mullah, AFAIK. As for being an ascetic, well, we all know politicians who like to claim they're "from the people"

I would personally peg him as more of a Latin American leftist populist more than anything else. But its certainly possible that he may indeed help to break down the mullah's financial corrupt rule. Not all reformers are necessarily ideal.

I do not see the point of worrying whether or not Ahmadinejad was one of the students involved in the hostage situation in 1979. As Steve said "big whoop". What are we going to do about it? What can we do about it? I think more pressing issues are what will happen to the reformist movement and the prospect of nuclear weapons in Iran. And to echo what Dan asked: How much power does he really hold?

Ensuring the security of embassies and diplomatic personnel is a bare minimum requirement of civilized conduct among states. Even the Communists understood that. So in principle, involvement of a head of state in an unambiguously criminal act like the 1979 embaassy seizure and kidnapping is certainly a big deal.

Two things about this, however, in practice. First, we are not yet sure of what Ahmadinejad's role in the 1979 affair was, and second, we do not know how much authority he will end up having within the Iranian government. A wait and see attitude until these questions (especially the second) are answered is indicated.

Also, and per Dan's last point, while Ahmadinejad's economic ideas certainly bear some resemblance to the hopeless state populism we saw in Latin America 50 years ago there is no reason in principle why genuine reformers in Iran should object to an attack on corruption, especially since it is the senior clerics who are corruption's principle beneficiaries. This is a path worth exploring; it may lead nowhere, and Khamenei and the rest of the conservative clergy may neuter Ahmadinejad as easily as they did Khatami, but we know so little about Iran's internal politics that we ought to keep an open mind for now.

"The only thing that will deter Bush is real, not fictious WMDs, apparently."

There's a lot of badness in the world, as Judge Smails so aptly put it. But anyone more afraid of GW Bush and America than a nuclear armed Iran is in fetters. As brazen as Iran is _now_ about supporting terrorism, I dont want to think about what they will try with a nuclear umbrella, and thats setting aside the possibility that they go nuts and nuke Tel Aviv themselves.

Jon H: "In America, we'd just call it a "youthful indiscretion"."

Only if he was a Republican. Finding Jesus[1] helps too.

[1] No actual attempt to live a Christian life need be involved in 'finding Jesus', to reassure those who are interested in this self-pardoning.

Would Ahmadinejad put out a platform challenging economic corruption without at least the tacit approval of the conservative clerics? Keeping an open mind about Iran (or anything else) seems perfectly reasonable, unless you're being played. If the Iranian idea is to throw out one PR tease after another, in an effort to keep the heat off and make people think things are improving, an anti-corruption campaign would seem to be a good way. Arrest a few corrupt officials, lop their heads off, no harm done.

So while we may not know much about internal Iranian politics, at some point we need to make some assumptions, based on what little we do know. And it seems unlikely the mullahs are interested in the rule of law.

Another example of Bubble America. The canny policy move would have been to do a Nixon-in-China move on Iran and make friends. Everyone sit down and jointly agree for past wrongs - numerous on both sides. Iran would have been a great cooperative in our present situation. But Americans get grudge and they will not give it up.

THere are reasons why they hate us. They are old and now irrelvant, but they were never recognized so they go on hating us.

Foriegn policy in the white house has been lousy for decades and this is a fine example of why.

Nixon did not go to China to surrender anything. Just so we're clear on the history.

exclab: The reasons that the Iranians hate the US are not old and irrelevant. The Allies intervened (arguably invaded) Persia in WWII, the US deposed a regime in the 1950s and they encouraged Iraq to fight Iran in the late 1970s.

The US is making bellicose noises about invasion. The US has troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Oman. The US has surrounded Iran.

There are important lobby groups that are pushing for 'something to be done' about Iran in the US now. The US is currently flying drones and U2 aircraft over Iran.

How are they meant to react? By just rolling over?

If you were an Iranian, wouldn't you think that the only thing that is stopping the US from moving in is the fact that Iraq is a debacle and that motivating the American people for an invasion of a state 3 times the size or Iraq would be difficult?

exclab: The reasons that the Iranians hate the US are not old and irrelevant. The Allies intervened (arguably invaded) Persia in WWII, the US deposed a regime in the 1950s and they encouraged Iraq to fight Iran in the late 1970s.

The US is making bellicose noises about invasion. The US has troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Oman. The US has surrounded Iran.

There are important lobby groups that are pushing for 'something to be done' about Iran in the US now. The US is currently flying drones and U2 aircraft over Iran.

How are they meant to react? By just rolling over?

If you were an Iranian, wouldn't you think that the only thing that is stopping the US from moving in is the fact that Iraq is a debacle and that motivating the American people for an invasion of a state 3 times the size or Iraq would be difficult?

Zathras

Well, yes he did. He surrendered the proposition that the US would stand by a moral stance that indicated a lack of cooperation with communists. This was his brilliant move. And they surrendered ethical stances they held. It was a move so devoid of morbid moral grandstanding that I almost started to like the guy. It indicated the understanding that differences of opinion and moral standards get directly in the way of decent policy. This is exactly the problem we have with Iran.

But this administration is full of this awful pride that limits everything they do.

exclab,

You are absolutely right, "The canny policy move would have been to do a Nixon-in-China move on Iran and make friends."

Your post makes me think of one of the great tragedies/missed opportunities of the 20th century. If Franklin Roosevelt hadn't been so moralistic, he could have gone to Tokyo and Berlin in 1940 and made friends and headed off Pearl Harbor and our participation in WWII. But with embargoes and lend-lease and speeches about evil, he continued to make them hate us--and great death and destruction followed.

Sweeney -

Shush. Thats ridiculous. Japan had already conquered Manchuria in 1940 and its intentions were clear as evidenced by action. Germany's actions had also made its intentions clear. It wasn't a moral issue, it was a military one.

Iran is entirely different. They have some real grievances which need to be dealt with so both countries can get on with a better future. Because we have our grievances too.

Thier grievances? Mosedeq. The Shah.

Our grievances? The hostages. Sponsoring our enemies.

If we don't sort this out, Southern Iraq is going to become a separate country probably associated with a hostile Iran. In that case the Chinese will do a deal with they and Iran and we will be out of that part of the world forever.

So go on with your badself Sweeney

Sweeney -

Shush. Thats ridiculous. Japan had already conquered Manchuria in 1940 and its intentions were clear as evidenced by action. Germany's actions had also made its intentions clear. It wasn't a moral issue, it was a military one.

Iran is entirely different. They have some real grievances which need to be dealt with so both countries can get on with a better future. Because we have our grievances too.

Thier grievances? Mosedeq. The Shah.

Our grievances? The hostages. Sponsoring our enemies.

If we don't sort this out, Southern Iraq is going to become a separate country probably associated with a hostile Iran. In that case the Chinese will do a deal with they and Iran and we will be out of that part of the world forever.

So go on with your badself Sweeney

Sweeney -

Shush. Thats ridiculous. Japan had already conquered Manchuria in 1940 and its intentions were clear as evidenced by action. Germany's actions had also made its intentions clear. It wasn't a moral issue, it was a military one.

Iran is entirely different. They have some real grievances which need to be dealt with so both countries can get on with a better future. Because we have our grievances too.

Thier grievances? Mosedeq. The Shah.

Our grievances? The hostages. Sponsoring our enemies.

If we don't sort this out, Southern Iraq is going to become a separate country probably associated with a hostile Iran. In that case the Chinese will do a deal with they and Iran and we will be out of that part of the world forever.

So go on with your badself Sweeney

Sweeney -

Shush. Thats ridiculous. Japan had already conquered Manchuria in 1940 and its intentions were clear as evidenced by action. Germany's actions had also made its intentions clear. It wasn't a moral issue, it was a military one.

Iran is entirely different. They have some real grievances which need to be dealt with so both countries can get on with a better future. Because we have our grievances too.

Thier grievances? Mosedeq. The Shah.

Our grievances? The hostages. Sponsoring our enemies.

If we don't sort this out, Southern Iraq is going to become a separate country probably associated with a hostile Iran. In that case the Chinese will do a deal with they and Iran and we will be out of that part of the world forever.

So go on with your badself Sweeney

Sweeney -

Shush. Thats ridiculous. Japan had already conquered Manchuria in 1940 and its intentions were clear as evidenced by action. Germany's actions had also made its intentions clear. It wasn't a moral issue, it was a military one.

Iran is entirely different. They have some real grievances which need to be dealt with so both countries can get on with a better future. Because we have our grievances too.

Thier grievances? Mosedeq. The Shah.

Our grievances? The hostages. Sponsoring our enemies.

If we don't sort this out, Southern Iraq is going to become a separate country probably associated with a hostile Iran. In that case the Chinese will do a deal with they and Iran and we will be out of that part of the world forever.

So go on with your badself Sweeney

I think we get the point by now. Thanks.

Very sorry. I kept getting a message that the server was not working. Lamely I continued to post hopeing the problem would be solved. Very sorry.

exclab,

How exactly do you propose these grievances be "dealt with"? Please give an example of how that might work.

exclab,

Japan wanted the resources (and people) of East Asia. They had no desire to conquer the United States. But we persisted in trying to protect the colonies of the European powers and our own favored governments in EA (including the Kuomintang in China, not a terribly effective or honest ruling party). I don't see how it would have been any more difficult to "make a deal" and "live in peace" with them than it would be to make a deal with the mullahs in Iran.

Why are people constantly assuming that it is possible to make a workable deal with any country today but would have been impossible with Germany and Japan 65 years ago?

Germany and Japan were clearly expansionist. Iran is not at the moment. We have common interest - the oil trade. They are semi-democratic in a region which isn't very democratic. They are in the perfect spot for us to have an ally. Our grievances are historical. There is no real reason for us to fight now. We go on fighting because we are both propelled by moral imperatives of two different kinds. Morals don't work in international affairs because everyone had different ones. Respect does because it is more easily recongnized for one thing.

Why something can't worked out on a Nixon-in-China level is quite beyond my understanding. Everytime I look at the map - there it is - Iran, between Afganistan and Iraq. A stable country in its various incarnations for thousands of years. The other two are 19th century inventions that many assume will not work. Iraq is a particularly flimsy arrangement - that we now have been enjoined to support. This also I find very difficult to countenance.

Lets go to Iran. What seems to be the hold up?

Japan and Germany were clearly expansionist but they had no real quarrel with the United States. Japan wanted a free hand in Asia. Germany wanted a free hand in Europe and the European colonies. We refused to give it to either of them. We affirmatively helped the people who were fighting them and denied Germany and Japan access to raw materials they thought they needed. Now perhaps some years down the road they would have been a problem ...

The Iranian rulers may be open to a deal. But they are religious people, and religious people are notorious for being moralistic. The mullahs really believe America is the Great Satan. They really believe they are leading an Islamic Revolution (their term), which must spread throughout the Muslim world, and eventually convert the entire world. Now that isn't traditionally "expansionist" but I detect a lot of the flavor. (And I certainly hope you don't think that Ahmadinejad can do whatever he wants. Like Khatami, he will be able to do what the religious leaders allow him to do, no more, no less.)

I think the following satire does the other side some justice.
"Ahmadinejad", - New Supreme Court Justice?"
Supreme Court justice,Sandra Day O'connor, just announced her soon to be departure, only two days ago and already names are being tossed out for a replacement. Senator Joe Biden and others are suggesting that Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be the right choice. "We need a moderate who can satisfy both sides of the isle and Mahmoud fits the bill", Biden said. "Look, Conservatives have accused Ahmadinejad of being one of the ring leaders in the take over of the U.S. embassy in 1979. Mahmoud denies this as well as some other anti U.S. Iranian officials. Some of them say he wanted to be involved,but,they refused him.Others say he was inside the embassy,but,was not a decision maker and only briefed Ayatollah Ruhollah khomeini on what was happening.Yet, others say he felt Russia was a bigger Satan and that their embassy should be taken over, not the U.S. embassy". Biden continued,"In regard to the 1989 slayings of Kurdish politician Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou and two associates, we are told, he only supplied the weapons and didn't do the actual killings. All this, points to someone with ideologies right in the middle. Not too far to the right,not too far to the left. He is the perfect person that both liberals and conservatives can agree on,and nominate as Sandra Day O'connor's replacement". President Bush was asked about this suggestion from Senator Biden."Can I filibuster that question?", he quipped. - politicalhumor.blogspot.com

Well, I still say they are not expansionist and they are the ally we need. We maybe the great satan, but China had words just as bad for us before Nixon arrived.

I think foriegn policy since the fall of communism has been myopic. Clinton and Bush Jr. have not been very perceptive of oppurtunity when it arose. Thier predecessors were not much better with exception perhaps of Bush Sr.

I think Americans live in a bubble of thier own making. The walls of the bubble are reflective and they tend to see themselves when they look at the world. When the US was the leader of the free world, the US got away with more, was allowed the occasional mistake and forgiven its gross misapprehensions. But this skew of vision is becoming more dangerous by the month.

exclab,

Bush should send Grand Ayatollah Khamanei this url:

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/war/why-cant-we-be-friends.html

Or perhaps:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000032V8/ref=pd_sxp_f/002-9912663-8186403