Blood Under the Bridge

WHEN revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in the Iranian capital on November 4th 1979 they took more than five dozen hostages and held most of them for a painful 444 days. The episode is known to many Iranians as “The Conquest of the American spy den”. Bad feeling continues to this day, long after the hostages have become fodder for history books and Hollywood films. Few modern nations inspire so much mutual distrust and loathing.

The inauguration of a new Iranian president on August 4th is a rare chance to change that. Hassan Rohani is not a reformer or friend of the West—no such man could rise to the top in Iran’s system of managed democracy. But unlike his predecessor, a straightforward wolf in wolf’s clothing when it came to foreign relations, Mr Rohani comes with fewer lupine features. Even if many outsiders (notably the Israelis) sense something sinister underneath, he has sold himself to the Iranian people as a pragmatist and a negotiator. Though the deal later fell apart, as the head of the national security council in 2003 he agreed to a pause in Iran’s nuclear programme, the main bone of contention between the two countries. He has already generated some optimism at home, both by hinting at relaxing some political restrictions (see article) and by suggesting direct talks with America, with whom Iran has no diplomatic links. This has encouraged speculation that a new deal on the nuclear programme is available.

In this section

Liberty’s lost decade

Yesterday’s fuel

Democracy and hypocrisy

Apps at the gate

Blood under the bridge?

Reprints

Related topics

United States

Nuclear weapons

International relations

Middle East politics

Iranian politics

For many reasons, America and its allies should be cautious. Mr Rohani’s offer of talks may be a delaying tactic, giving the centrifuges more time: in the past he has boasted of outwitting the West. Even if genuine, he represents only one of many power centres in the Islamic republic: the...