Buried within his written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week was a statement advocating an opening to Iran. As the UPI reported, Powell said: “We have important differences on matters of policy.... But these differences need not preclude greater interaction, whether in more normal commerce or increased dialogue.” A copy of the hearing transcripts shows that senators pressed Powell on the statement. So he explained: “We can see in recent years that there is change happening in Iran. We have those who hold power, the old ayatollahs, but there is a president who was elected to office. He was elected to office because the people of Iran were expecting a little more moderation, a little more openness in their lives.”

David Wurmser, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, calls Powell’s policy prescriptions in Iran “delusional.” “If you look at Iran closely,” he says, “there’s been a turn toward the hard-line because of the Clinton administration’s policy of apology toward Iran.”

It’s an opinion shared by Stephen Flatow, who won a $247.5 million verdict against Iran in connection with the 1995 murder of his daughter Alisa in an Iranian-funded terrorist attack. In particular, Flatow took issue with Powell’s contention that moderation was taking root in Iran. “I don’t see anything happening,” says Flatow. “Not until they actually address America’s allegation that they’ve been a state sponsor of terrorism and they withhold support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and all the other groups that conduct terrorism in the Middle East.”