A number of weeks ago there was a great stir over a story that the new President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejab, had been one of the radical students that seized the US embassy in Tehran twenty-five years ago.  This story rested on comparisons of a grainy black and white photo and the recollection of a very small number of the former hostages but it seems to keep popping up here and there. 

Just today, CNN tells us that the CIA believes Ahmadinejab wasn't involved but the bigger question hasn't been answered:  What the hell difference does it make if he was or wasn't involved in seizing the US embassy? 

Why is this even a story?  Sure relations between the US and Iran are not very good right now, but last I noticed we don't get to pick who becomes President in Iran.  For better or for worse that is determined by Iranians, through an admittedly flawed political process, developed also by Iranians, and although we might not like that the man is a hardliner and anti-American, he still won by a landslide and there's really very little we can do about it.  Stories like this are cute and typical of our personality obsessed news cycle, but even if they are true, no matter how defiant or anti-American Ahmadinejab is we would still have to find a way of realistically dealing with Iran and their new President.  That's the story that's missing.