Iran election Two views

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and subcommittee on international operations and organizations, democracy and human rights

The reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran means America and the free world will remain on a collision course with Iran over its nuclear development program. But even if the people of Iran had elected the more moderate Mir Hossein Mousavi … (it) wouldn’t have changed one fundamental fact: Iran’s policies ultimately are controlled by its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As America learned only too well during the l979-‘80 American embassy hostage crisis, Iranian leaders such as Khamenei are hardliners when it comes to foreign policy and especially when it comes to Israel. We must continue to unite the world community of nations to stand firm against Iranian development of nuclear material that could be used as a weapon against Israel or any other nation.

Rep. David Scott, an Atlanta Democrat, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and vice-chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation and international trade

The Iranian people still have a ways to go before they are ready to embrace reforms and a reformist leader and rejoin the world stage. They still have a few more years of this fiery populist rhetoric, hate-filled speech and reckless march toward nuclear capabilities, and they will continue to see their economy decline … (but) I still say change is in the wind. (Ahmadinejad) will have to, going forward, if he is smart, readjust his sails somewhat. … He has lost support among educated people and upper-income groups. Where is the supreme leader? That is the unknown in all of this. I think that either way, the U.S. has to recalculate our approach with Iran based on these elections.

Compiled and edited by Tom Sabulis tsabulis@ajc.com