In 1979, an angry mob of Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took more than 60 Americans hostage. U.S. President Jimmy Carter allowed Iran's deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to enter the U.S. to receive medical treatment. The students, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, demanded the extradition of the toppled Shah for trial of the crimes committed during his reign. The hostages were freed 444 days after the crisis began and just minutes later Ronald Reagan took the oath as president.According to many, the hostage crisis cost Jimmy Carter a second term. The crisis absorbed his concentration and his focus on the hostage crisis kept him away from the campaign rallies.The media saw the hostage-taking as a violation of the principles of international law granting diplomatic immunity. But at the same time, the extensive coverage served as a demoralizing environment for the 1980 presidential election. The crisis made Carter look weak and inept.The Republican candidate Reagan took advantage of the crisis. Rumors even circulated that he negotiated with the Iranians to make sure that hostages would not be released before he was elected. If they were released, Carter would definitely have a chance. But it didn't happen until Reagan's inaugural address.I have been thinking of the Iran hostage crisis ever since the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) kidnapped 49 people in the Turkish consulate and 31 Turkish truck drivers in two separate attacks in the Iraqi city of Mosul. I didn't notice the similarities between the two crises until Monday.I mean, all the pieces of the puzzle have been falling into place except that. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's sectarian policies were eventually going to cause the disintegration of Iraq. ISIS was growing with the help of ongoing instability, hostility and violence in the region. But why would ISIS, a strategically shrewd militant group, abduct Turkish citizens right in the middle of the turmoil and ruffle Turkey's temper? They've been clever enough not to fight Bashar Assad while fighting the Syrian opposition. Why would they have made more enemies other than Iraq, Iran and Syria in the middle of their brutal march in Iraq?Have they wanted to use the Turks as bargaining chips? Ok but for what? What is the precious thing that Turkey is holding that pushed ISIS to take the risk?On Monday, the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) announced their common nomination for the upcoming presidential election with their invisible partners, the Gülen Movement and business tycoons. Their nominee Eklemettin İhsanoğlu, former Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, was known for being a silent Muslim over the coup in Egypt and Assad's crimes in Syria, an attitude directly opposed to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's. This significant contrast indicates that the presidential race will be built upon debates regarding Turkey's foreign policy.We can't be sure for now but I will not be surprised if the countries or organizations that back or cooperate with ISIS have a finger in the abduction of the Turks to make sure that it costs Erdoğan's presidency as the Iranian hostage crisis did Jimmy Carter. Who knows?