Yes, it is all relative. It is appeasement compared to war and much heavier sanctions that ended up being necessary. Clinton and even Bush II administrations were hoping internal change would come up during Khatami era and hoping for him to be Gorbachev. Regardless of Bush II harsh rhetoric, the real animosity only really started after Ahmadinejad was installed in Iran. You are correct that Clinton was still not as friendly as the other two, who very explicitly played into their hands.

In any case I was simply responding to OP's "why" question and that their theory on blaming Reagan allegedly vs Carter on a narrow point, highlighting that particular case is temporally much later, and has no relevance to the underlying reason Carter is hated over there.

Fine, show some quotes from "Mullahs" where they acknowledge this supposed appeasement.

I don't think them acknowledging anything in public is either necessary or relevant to the discussion. None of this is germane to the original question posed and I have no intention to change the narrative in your head so I'm out of here.

What "narrative"? You made a claim about "desperate appeasement", and if that was true, I imagine that iranian politicians and twelver clergy would brag about it incessantly.