THIS TIME it was an airstrip in Tehran. And in a rage of powerlessness, we waited anxiously for word that the threats, the beatings, the killings had ended.

After six days and two dead--including two Americans--Reagan officials were among the most intent observers. This administration had declared a war on terrorism, only to meet with car bombs in Lebanon and hijackers in Iran. Some U.S. officials accused the Iraninan government of abetting, or at least failing to counter forcefully, the terrorists' cause, leaving the United States in a still more helpless situation since strategies to combat terrorism typically presuppose the cooperation of the host government.

Undoubtedly, the hijackers might have been stopped more quickly had the Kuwaiti plane been resting on an airstrip at Charles de Gaulle or Heathrow. But the feeling of impotence when faced with hijackings and similar acts is inherent to terrorism, no matter where or when it occurs. Those with a rational outlook and profound concern for human life will always be at a disadvantage when forced to bargain with those whose political or religious fanaticism has supplanted a similar taste for decency. In this respect, President Reagan was no better prepared to meet the terrorist challenge in Iran than his predecessor was five years ago.

There have been some successful anti-or counter-terrorist strategies: the Israelis, for example, have earned a reputation as particularly skilled in this arena. But the fact remains that terrorism is extremely difficult to thwart once in progress. Intelligence, resourcefulness and will are little defense against the steady ticking of a detonator.

If any real defense against terrorism can be said to exist, it must be in the realm of prevention. Airport metal detectors and reinforced barricades are the surface-level deterrents, but still more important is a reexamination of this country's image and actions abroad in light of terrorist motivations. White House officials have charged that the Iranian government did little to help end the recent crisis, thereby thwarting any hope of promptly ending the incident, but we have heard little about why the Iranians withheld their support.

At least part of the answer must lie in the resentment Iranians feel toward this country for its vigorous support of the Shah--the same resentment that led to the seizure of 50 American hostages by a group of militant Iranian students in 1980, with the tacit support of Ayatollah Khomeni's new government.

Debating whether terrorist acts are a justified, or even a rational, expression of this resentment is fruitless. The point is that the United States makes itself more vulnerable to extreme or symbolic attacks by terrorists in foreign nations depending on the degree to which citizens of that nation perceive the U.S. as acting against their interests. What Americans have not yet grasped is that terrorism is often a necessary byproduct of misguided foreign policy. Because the United States has acted carelessly, even recklessly, as a world power. Americans abroad have become ready targets for anti-American or anti-imperialist sentiment.

In this light, terrorism assumes a loss random mask. Contrary to President Reagan's claims after the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, terrorist attacks are not impossible to predict: certainly no one in the Administration should have been wholly surprised by American unpopularity in Lebanon, where we backed a Christian government in a now predominantly Muslim country. We cannot hope to predict where the next tragedy will hit, but some guesses are more reasonable than others. Perhaps the Philippines, where uncritical U.S. support of the heavy-handed President Marco is viewed with increasing resentment. Other good bets include Nicaragua, or South Africa.

ANOTHER STORY in the headlines this week offers a disquieting example of offers a disquieting example of how insidious. American insensitivity abroad can be. The deadly gas leak from the American-owned Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India immediately raised questions as to whether the firm had taker, adequate precautions to safeguard Indian lives.

Although the indication in this case is that the plant's standards were equivalent to those in force in the United States, such evenhanded treatment is not always the case. In many instances, including the sale of pesticides, contraceptives, and potential carcinogens, United States firms export technologies that have been banned in this country. In addition, exploitative labor practices that could not escape the watchful eye of American unions and labor advocates find more fertile ground amid the vast unemployment of the Third World.

What is such an American presence if not a subtle form of terrorism? Economic desperation ensures that developing countries will welcome, even court, such firms and technology even when the risks are known: when the dangers are concealed, the damage only seems more random, though it is equally as deadly.

Coupled with frequently insensitive U.S. political actions abroad, this corporate presence prompts many foreigners to see this country as a strongarm of self-interest, rather than a stronghold of liberty. And the powerlessness engendered among. Third World countries--and, in fact, even out Western allies--by this ponderous. American influence breeds the sort of desperation on which terrorism thrives.

Those in the Third World who perceive an oppressive and powerful American involvement in the affairs of their country are precisely those who would risk their own lives in some extremist assault on that presence. Although isolated acts of terrorism are unlikely to remedy the fundamental imbalance of power between relatively helpless groups of citizens and entrenched governments, it is the sad truth that such attacks have successfully focused attention on the claims of those who had previously gone ignored. However illegitimate and distasteful a forum, terrorism is a megaphone for the voices of the disgruntled.

TERRORISM will always exist as an appealing option to the fanatical, but it need not persist as a forum for the politically frustrated. Nor need it continue to single out American victims as readily as in the past. The United States government must ensure that its economic and political preponderance globally is tempered with a more thoughtful and respectful consideration of world peoples. If U.S. corporations are unwilling to exercise restraint on their own, our government must seek to enforce fair labor and safety practices abroad. If foreign governments receiving U.S. aid operate repressive regimes, this country must speak out publicly against such abuses and make its aid conditional on standards of basic economic and civil justice.

To the extent that these principles have been violated or ignored by past U.S. administrations, this country has presented itself as a ready target for any number of forms of attack. It has victimized both the peoples we have slighted, and the Americans who have then borne the ugly backlash of such resentment.