Is it possible that Khamenei would try to avoid an attack on his country by the U.S. by removing or at least side-linning Ahmedinejad? We know the mullahs are the real power in Iran. With the trouble that Ahmedinejad is bringing to his country through hs bluster and his threats, is it possible the mullahs would make a move that could put a feeze to the war posturing of the U.S. by engaging in real negotiations?

I hope so. Of course, knowing Bush and Cheney, if they believe their war plans could be ruined by such a move I believe it is likely they would move against Iran before that could happen.

Am I just paranoid? Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

Cmon people! Lets not jump to conclusions before learning about the country we're so feverishly discussing!

Ayatollah Khamenei is not some random "mullah", he serves as the Supreme Leader, a political rank designated by the Iranian constitution. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembley of Experts, an 85-member representative congressional body (voted in by the public every 8 years)that is charged with overseeing the duties and conduct of the Supreme Leader. He can be dismissed by the Assembley at any time.

Last month, Ayatollah Rafsanjani was elected to the position of Chairman of the Assembley of Experts. He is considered a pragmatist conservative, and is very much against Ahmadinejad and like-minded hardliners.

Ayatollah Khamenei strongly opposes the stockpiling and development of nuclear weapons.

Do not confuse "Ayatollah" with the image of some kind of Taliban "mullah". Iran is in no way some kind of an "authoritarian mullah" state. Of course, there are many neo-conservative (not in the American sense) people in power, but there are definite signs of improvement.

If we let the Iranian public handle its own affairs, we may actually see progress. This latest bit is a clear sign.

Seth, I think you missed the point of what I was saying. No, I don't believe the U.S. is or should be the worlds police. I do believe, however, that this administration is intent on finding any justification to launch an attack on Iran and I believe the Iranians think that as well.

If you had reason to believe that your country was about to be attacked by a nation who has the capacity to wipe your country off the map and said country was run by a madman who was capable of doing so, wouldn't you try to find a way to avoid destruction? I think it's possible the mullahs in Iran might be doing just that or at least I hope so.

By the way. Has anyone else noticed the change in the administrations threats. Now it's not the possession of nukes but just the knowledge of how to make one.

Fasten your seatbelts, boys and girls. The rides about to get real bumpy.

Maybe I missed the point but it sounds like our proposed anti-missile system in Eastern Europe just became a bargaining chip to get Russia on side for an attack on Iran.

If Khamenei is putting the brakes on Ahmadinejad and using Larijani as the excuse, perhaps it's a good sign that cooler heads are prevailing in Iran. We know Bush and Cheney are just crazy enough to endeavor an attack on Iran. Maybe now, the Iranians do, too.

I think that Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire", yet went on to negotiate with them without having to eat very much crow.

Sorry but Clemons drops the ball on this post, and here's why

First of all Steve, don't use the word "reprocessing" when referring to Iran's nuclear program because it shows that you haven't taken the time to minimally familiarize yourself with the technology. In nuclear-technology speak, reprocessing means something entirely different than what Iran is doing. Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear reactors - a technology that is widely shared and recently developed even by Argentina and Brazil. Iran is not "reprocessing" and in fact in Iran has offered to forego reprocessing altogether, among other offers.

And that's the second problem with Clemon's post: the buys into this frame, promoted by the Bush administration, that the dispute is about nuclear technology. In fact, Iran has made several offers of nuclear compromise that would address even the theoretical chance that its civilian nuclear program could one day be used to make bombs - offers that go well beyond Iran's legal obligations as well as beyond what other countries such as Argentina and Brazil have agreed to do - but still the US refuses to acknowledge these offers. The conclusion: the nuclear issue is merely a pretext and rallying cry for what is really an agenda of war and so no amount of compromise by Iran would satisfy the US - which is why everytime Iran did compromise on the issue in the past (such as by suspending its nuclear program for 2 years during the course of the Paris Agreement negotiations with the EU-3) the US torpedoed any negotiations and simply increased its demands on Iran.

Third, Clemons uncriticially refers to the (alleged) Russian proposal that Iran should move its nuclear program to Russia. That would make Iran entirely dependent on Russian good will to obtain the necessary nuclear fuel to power its reactors, in effect giving Russia a veto over Iran's economic development. What country would willingly make itself hostage to another country? Would the US agree to something like that? Why should Iran? Note that it was Cheney himself who accused the Russians of engaging in energy blackmail when the Russians cut off fuel deliveries to Georgia and East European countries. And like I said, since the entire nuclear issue is a pretext anyway, this whole point of moving Iran's nuclear program to Russia is irrelevant - the US will simply find another excuse to attack Iran.

And Clemons is buying into the whole frame of "Ahmadinejad v Khamenei" which is part of the exaggeration of Ahmadinejad's power and giving him the "bogeyman" status - when in fact there's little difference between the two on the nuclear issue, and in fact Ahmadinejad has very little say on the nuclear issue anyway. In fact, the entire spectrum of Iranians - even dissidents - support Iran's nuclear program because it has become a nationalistic cause, and the US-Israeli-EU insistence of depriving Iran of her nuclear rights stirs up deep historical resentments in the Iranians that most Americans aren't aware of because they haven't a clue about Iranian history. As Prof Ervand Abrahamian has pointed out, this isn't the first time that foreigners have tried to deprive Iran of her rights by issuing ultimatums and such - and the politicians who gave into such ultimatums are reviled in Iranian hisotry to this day.

And finally, Clemons is overlooking the role of the Israeli lobby in pushing the US into a war on Iran. And why is Israel doing this? Because Israel genuinely fears that Iran may get nukes? Nope - the reason, as explained by Dr Trita Parsi (who Clemons knows) is because Israel doesn't want to see the US and Iran get along. US recognition of Iran as a regional power would challenge Israel's ambitions on the Mideast and reduce Israel's strategic value to the US.

"The knowledge to make bombs" formulation is deliberately used to sidestep the fact that no actual weapons program was found in Iran:

The justification for the invasion of Iraq became more and more vague with each step, to smooth over the fact that Iraqi WMD had failed to materialise... Similarly, the absence of any actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons programme is being smoothed over through the use of ambiguities...The intentional conflation of a nuclear weapons programme with a nuclear-energy programme takes several forms. For example, in addition to overt references to a weapons programme, there may be references to Iran's nuclear "threat", or vague statements about Iran's nuclear "ambitions", or even more tenuously, allusions to Iran's "intentions" to obtain a nuclear-weapons "capability".

"I'm sure Israel would be glad to be as safe and as secure as Taiwan..."
It is. And Israel has nukes, on top of the most advanced military in the middle east.

Do you really believe your own trash? Or do you just think we're al that stupid?

Steve, don't know if you've time to be reading, but I'd love a post from you in response to Bush's posturing on Cuba today.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Here is what was in the plan:
4. The reaffirmation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the exercise of their inalienable and imprescriptible national rights, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, their sole and legitimate representative, and the indemnification of those who do not desire to return;

Obviously, Israel would never agree to the "right" of several million Arabs to move to Israel.
In anycase, we went over this issue several times with you. I doubt that we have anything new to say each other