Iran's New U.S. Ambassador Took Part In Terrorist Activities

Terrorism sponsors who fly in for the UN General Assembly. In the decades since the UN’s establishment, we’ve put up with—among others—Muammar Gadhafi, the deceased Libyan dictator, Robert Mugabe, the mass-murderer who still presides over Zimbabwe, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president and notorious Holocaust denier. We do so because, as a civilized participant in the international community, we are compelled to take a deep breath and respect the very same principles of diplomacy that the Iranian regime violated so obscenely when it stormed our embassy in Tehran.
As the State Department’s lawyers deliberate over Aboutalebi’s visa application, hopefully they will bear two key points prominently in mind. Firstly, that former President Jimmy Carter, in his State of the Union address in 1980, categorized the hostage crisis as an act of international terrorism. Secondly, that Aboutalebi, by his own admission, was present at the embassy with other leaders of the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, the terrorist group behind the hostage taking.

If he was involved with intimidating or abusing the hostages, he isn’t owning up to it—though that doesn’t mean he didn’t participate in some of the outrages recorded over those 444 days of captivity. All he will admit is that he didn’t participate in the initial occupation of the embassy, but that he subsequently acted as a translator and negotiator for the terrorists. About as convincing a defense as saying, “I didn’t steal your car, but I did help to sell it afterwards.”
Regardless of what the State Department does over Aboutalebi’s visa application, this whole episode is a useful reminder that the Islamic Republic remains an enemy—not a negotiating partner with whom we have differences, but an outright enemy—of the US. The man who named Aboutalebi to the UN post is President Hassan Rouhani, someone who has impressed the Obama administration with his moderation and his commitment to the nuclear deal reached last November in Geneva that we’ve actually started lightening the sanctions on Iran.
How, though, is that deal working out? Why, with the Aboutalebi appointment, is Iran risking the ire of the US at this delicate stage in the negotiations? Well, the answer seems to be that there isn’t much to hope for. Despite recent talks in Vienna, the mood is grim. “Mutual suspicion remains great and there is still a fundamental uncertainty as to what Iran really wants,” wrote BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
Predictably, the sanctions relief that accompanied the November agreement has led the Iranians to behave like kids let loose in a toy store. Progress is rapidly being made on a deal with the Russians over an oil-for-goods exchange that is worth around $20 billion. From the Iranian side, this would involve exports to Russia of around 500,000 barrels a day for two to three years.
Like the Aboutalebi visa application, news of the Russian-Iranian arrangement led to another American statement containing the phrase “serious concerns,” this time from the White House. Over and above such statements, if the US doesn’t block the deal, other countries will view that as a license to trade with Iran—as if the sanctions regime didn’t exist.
That’s one reason why it’s tempting to believe that you get more out of being a rogue state than a law-abiding one.