Iranian threat hasn’t vanished

We can only shake our heads in amazement at the Clinton administration's decision to no longer designate Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

Did we miss something? Have the ayatollahs stopped calling for the destruction of the United States and Israel?

We don't think so.

And neither does Israel or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Zalman Shoval, Israel's ambassador to the United States, released a statement saying that "Israel has not detected any change in Iran's policy regarding the support for terrorism or opposition to the peace process."

And AIPAC's spokesman Kenneth Bricker said his organization rejects the United States' unilateral action without reciprocation from Iran.

So what reason does the Clinton administration give for what amounts to a lifting of some sanctions that prohibited the sale of food or medicine to Iran?

State Department spokesmen say they don't believe Iran is as much as a terrorist state as it once was. But they further clarify their explanation by adding that there is a difficulty in "quantifying the level of terrorism."

In other words, Iran must be getting better because there is no proof it is getting worse.

The logic sounds faulty.

Why isn't the administration just being honest by saying it wants to improve diplomatic relations with Iran? Perhaps the administration doesn't want to be quizzed on why such a move is warranted.

What has Iran done to show it wants better relations? Whenever the president of Iran has uttered any words that come close to moderation, the ayatollahs have immediately issued denials.

In the meantime, the same State Department document that reduces Iran's terrorism status admits that "Iran continued to provide support to a variety of terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which oppose the Middle East peace process through violence. Iran supports these groups with varying amounts of training, money, and/or weapons."

And this merits a change in U.S. relations with Iran? Sorry, we just don't get it.