Another Iranian insult: Reject Aboutalebi
Poking yet another thumb into the eye of U.S. relations, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has chosen, of all people, a member of Iran's late 1970s terrorist group that seized the U.S. Embassy as its next United Nations ambassador.
Contrary to those who say the appointment of Hamid Aboutalebi poses another diplomatic debacle for Barack Obama, the president's course couldn't be more clear: The State Department must reject Mr. Aboutalebi's visa application.
Before serving as Iran's ambassador to Belgium and Italy, a much younger Aboutalebi participated in the U.S. Embassy siege in Tehran, where thugs held 52 Americans for 444 days. Among the hostages was Jerry Miele of Mt. Pleasant, who worked for the CIA.
Aboutalebi's lame excuse — that he acted merely as a translator and negotiator at the time — is meaningless to those who endured the siege and were never compensated.
No less disconcerting is that Mr. Rouhani, in his own twisted “diplomacy,” chose Aboutalebi for the U.N. post after reaching the so-called nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other nations.
The deal he advanced directly benefits Iran and was hailed by Iranians as a “coup.”
Apparently Mr. Rouhani isn't done rubbing the U.S. nose in the camel dung that passes as Iran's foreign policy. The United States should reciprocate by denying the visa application and informing Rouhani that the honeymoon's over.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saturday essay: Seeding next year
- Reforming immigration: Raise the bar
- More than just mums in Connellsville
- Fresh produce solution
- The Kane case: Distractions mount
- The Iranian deal: Mortal blessings
- Trumpeting ObamaCare: The Medicaid factor
- Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: More propaganda
- Wilmerding’s gamble
- Greensburg Tuesday takes