Ahmadinejad's hold on power "slipping badly"

More pragmatic speaker elected; likely to look for agreement with the West:

clipped from www.time.com Are Ahmadinejad's Days Numbered? Ali Larijani projected a presidential bearing as he accepted his election as speaker of Iran's parliament on Wednesday — a vote that boded ill for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Larijani, a high-profile arch-rival of the President, addressed global themes in his address to the opening session of the Majlis While Iran's insistence on its right to enrich uranium unites all major factions in the country, Larijani represents a more pragmatic approach to handling the issue, aimed at finding agreement with the West and avoiding confrontation. makes two things clear: President Ahmadinejad's hold on power is slipping badly, and next year's Iranian presidential election race is now wide open Prominent politicians and clerical figures have begun distancing themselves from Ahmadinejad and rallying around Larijani Ahmadinejad has alienated many in his own conservative camp with an arrogant personal style and erratic economic and foreign policies

American Jews Oppose Military Action against Iran

This just in: American Jews are opposed to any military attack on Iran, by a large margin, according to the American Jewish Committee's 2007 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion (6-25 November 2007).

7. Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?
Support	35
Oppose	57
Not Sure	8

The rest of the survey is just as good.

No, this doesn't surprise us: the fact obscured by both the Israel lobby and some of its most foolish critics is that, after all these years, Jewish Americans still largely lean to the Left, thinking more like oppressed Blacks than privileged whites, and adjusted for income differences (lower incomes tend to correlate with more progressive opinions on foreign policy as well as economics), Jewish Americans are probably the most progressive group in the USA; and that neo-conservatives are a tiny minority at odds with a great majority of Jewish Americans they claim to represent (Glenn Greenwald, "New Poll Reveals How Unrepresentative Neocon Jewish Groups Are," Salon.com, 12 December 2007). Now, isn't it great to have what we know confirmed by the American Jewish Committee again?

Update

"Two-Thirds of Israelis Oppose Attack on Iran: Poll" (Agence France Presse, 6 December 2007). Take that, neo-cons!

US Warplanes Violate Iranian Airspace

Tabnak reports that US warplanes from Iraq violated Iran's airspace around Khorramshahr nine times in the 24-hour period from 6 AM on Monday:
"تجاوز هواپيماي آمريکا به خرمشهر در 24ساعت" (13 November 2007). That is unprecedented since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, as Tabnak notes. An ominous sign.

Is it really "either - or"?

As David Corn writes in MotherJones, Joe Biden may have given the best comment in the October 30 presidential candidates' debate. Here's an excerpt:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, would you pledge to the American people that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb on your watch?

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards each wiggled his or her way out of the question, essentially pledging to do what they could to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Then Russert turned to Biden, and Biden threw the question back in Russert's face.

SEN. BIDEN: I would pledge to keep us safe. If you told me, Tim -- and this is not -- this is complicated stuff. We talk about this in isolation. The fact of the matter is the Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium; the Pakistanis have hundreds, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the government in Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed, with nuclear weapons on them ... then that's a bad bargain. ...

What is the greatest threat to the United States of America: 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out of control Pakistan? It's not close.

Biden was taking the mature approach to foreign policy, daring to challenge the false dichotomy: let Iran go nuclear or start a war.

Now, one could certainly challenge the idea of whether Iran will ever develop a nuclear weapon. Likewise, one could challenge the arrogance which assumes the nuclear USA has the right to decide who else joins the club.

But I do applaud Biden's refusal to comply with Russert's simplistic question; and I do applaud his attack on the absurd idea that foreign policy is ever as simple as Bush's binary: "Submit to the will of a foreign power or be bombed." Is either one a viable option to an elected leader of a sovereign nation?

Once again, Bush cannot see his policy as the catalyst that turns animosity to bellicosity.