When Mike meets Mahmoud part deux

I just watched and read the transcript of Mike Wallace's interview with Ahmadinejad (which C-SPAN will re-air unedited tonight) and I thought that it was an interesting interview for it gave me a glimpse of the way he thinks or at least of the way he argues his positions. Some wanted Wallace to ask tough questions, but I don't think a confrontational interview would have been as informative as this one was. I don't even think that it would have happened. Almost two decades ago, Wallace interviewed the Ayatollah Khomeini and he asked a tough question, which wasn’t translated and it made the interview more dramatic, but not more informative. Those who wanted to confront the President of Iran don't understand  that a journalist can get as much from the person he interviews by letting him talk (we have never really heard Ahmadinejad talked except when he gives his menacing speeches). People such Ahmadinejad (who now has a blog, hat tip: Andrew Sullivan) are not illuminated zealot, but that they live in their own world. There are so little that we know about Iran and about its leaders. Mike Wallace's interview was a good way to give Americans a glimpse of a person, who may not only change the Middle East, but change the world by making it more dangerous.