As a new frisson coursed through the diplomatic lounges in the wake of Iran’s seizure of eight British Royal Navy and Marines personnel on three vessels operating in contested waters, we were putting the finishing touches to an editorial reflecting on the hostage crisis that President Reagan brought to an end the day he acceded. The Iranians had out-waited President Carter, holding the hostages 444 days. More than 23 years later, America again finds itself held hostage once again by the regime in Iran. This time around, it is the American soldiers in Iraq who are under the Iranian gun.

The Iranian government, which even the State Department lists as one of the foremost terror-sponsoring nations, has been extraordinarily active in Iraq. Press reports say that the regime in Tehran has poured tens of millions of dollars into setting up a network of offices and agents in Iraq. Given that the mullahs have their own crumbling regime at home to worry about, it’s natural to ask why they are making the effort.

One likely reason is economic. Iran is suffering from a 15% unemployment rate and 15% annual inflation. American trade sanctions have taken a toll and worked to slow investment in Iran’s oil and gas sector. The Iranians are looking to Iraq — which is under no such American sanctions — as an economic lung to pump some air into the gasping Iranian economy.

Another reason is to gain leverage in negotiations with America. Washington has called on Iran to stop supporting terrorism, stop seeking nuclear weapons, surrender the Al Qaeda leaders it is harboring, and begin making progress toward human rights and democracy. What America has to offer in return is an easing of the economic sanctions, diplomatic recognition, and promises not to help the restless Iranian public overthrow its government. If the Iranians and their al lies in Iraq manage to kill several hundred more Americans between now and November, they could cost President Bush the election.

Senator Kerry, in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in December, said, “the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to conduct a realistic, nonconfrontational policy with Iran even where that may be possible. As president, I will be prepared early-on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago.”

“Iran has long expressed an interest in cooperating against the Afghan drug trade. That is one starting point,”Mr. Kerry said. “And, just as we have asked that Iran turn over Al Qaeda members who are there, the Iranians have looked to us for help in dealing with Iraq-based terrorists who threaten them. It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that this administration refuses to broker an arrangement with Iran for a mutual crackdown on both terrorist groups.”

Mr. Bush’s famous declaration that Iran was part of an “axis of evil” implied a different course of action than Mr. Kerry’s suggestion of normalizing relations and brokering agreements. But Mr. Bush’s political aides have long sought to temper that hard line until after the American presidential election.

The danger is that the Iranian government realizes this, too, and will do everything it can between now and November to undermine America’s efforts in Iraq and to move ahead with its nuclear weapons program, hoping to assure the election of a candidate prone to appeasement. In other words, they want to outwait Mr. Bush the way they outwaited Mr. Carter. The political advisers hoping Mr. Bush will wait until his second term to deal with the Iran problem are undermining his chances for a second term.