Insanity in Power in Iran--Past Behavior is a Great Predictor of the Future

In an editorial last July, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had this to say about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president-elect of Iran...I have marked some items in boldface for emphasis...

Editorial: Is leader a hostage-taker?

So what if it turns out that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president-elect, really was among the young militants who kidnapped U.S. diplomats and others in Tehran in 1979 and held them hostage for 444 days? Several of the former hostages swear that he was, and like many statements emanating from Tehran in recent years, denials from Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials don't have a whole lot of credibility.

It would hardly be surprising if the ex-hostages were right about Ahmadinejad. But it seems to us that what Ahmadinejad was and did as a young man more than 25 years ago is much less important than the kind of man he is now, what kind of leadership he intends to supply and what kind of policy the United States and other countries adopt in dealing with him and other Iranian leaders.
Several countries, especially those that have recently emerged from revolution, are led by people with controversial and even bloody biographies. It wouldn't be surprising, therefore, if the leaders of Iran today should include a man who was directly involved in the revolution of 1979, of which the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of Americans was perhaps the most spectacular part.

That kidnapping was not only a violation of international law and the protocols of diplomacy but a cruel and criminal act perpetrated against men and women who had devoted their professional lives to the peaceful resolution of disputes. But many Iranians, at least at the time, believed the embassy and the hostages to be symbols and agents of U.S. support for a hated dictator.
Ahmadinejad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards and was supported by Iran's conservative clerics during the recent presidential campaign. But he and his aides insist he was not among those who took over the embassy. Another claim, that he was involved in the assassination of an Iranian Kurdish leader in 1989, also has not been documented.

Several other facts about Iran, however, are not only obvious but exigent: It is a nation of 68 million people and the seat of an ancient civilization, is a major oil producer, holds a pivotal geographic position in the Middle East (it borders, among other important countries, Iraq), has long supported the Hezbollah terror group and may be secretly attempting to build nuclear weapons. For these and several other reasons, its relations with the U.S. and other countries are extremely important.

When he takes office on Aug. 4, Ahmadinejad will not be Iran's top ruler; conservative clerics hold most of the instruments of power in that country. But Ahmadinejad apparently has the trust of these clerics, which means he probably has their ear, and he also has the demonstrated support of the Iranian people. It just makes sense for the U.S. and other countries to get a better fix on him - not so much what he was like more than 25 years ago but what he is now and what he wants to do.

So what if he kidnapped Americans 25 years ago? Well, how about this--the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I think the fact that he participated in a hostage-taking indicates the kind of person he was and is. This was not just a frat prank. Perhaps if he had admitted his role in the kidnapping and apologized to the world, it might have been reasonable to reserve judgement.

But, based on his comments about the Holocaust as a myth, the desire to wipe Isral off the face of the earth and the celebratory glee over Ariel Sharon's medical emergency, it looks as though the hostage incident was a great predictor of what kind of leader Ahmadinejad would become.

But perhaps we should wait until he launches a nuclear attack on Israel to really decide "what he is now and what he wants to do".

Or maybe not.