You know how liberal sophisticates have been condescendingly insisting that Iran should be engaged because its moderates are winning. This is the insufferable "conservatives are too stupid to understand the complicated internal dynamics of Iran" line of argument. Opps:

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, viewed by the West as a moderating influence in Tehran, resigned before crucial talks with Europe this week over Iran’s nuclear program, signaling that officials here may have closed the door to any possible negotiated settlement in its standoff with the West... with Mr. Larijani’s resignation, it appears that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all matters of state, has fallen in squarely behind the president. Mr. Ahmadinejad represents the most radical face of the leadership, which has defied the United Nations Security Council twice and sped up the process of uranium enrichment... it appears that the top leadership has settled on a single, radical track. “This is definitely a major political change, and not necessarily a positive one,” said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst and former government official. “It might mean that Iran is speeding up its activities and is becoming more radical, especially now with higher oil prices.”

Since 2005, Iran has taken a two-pronged approach to its nuclear conflict with the West, allowing Mr. Larijani to negotiate with Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency, while Mr. Ahmadinejad said that there was no room to negotiate and that Iran would not back down. While the most immediate impact of the announcement bears directly on nuclear negotiations, which are supposed to resume Tuesday between Iran and the European Union, it also speaks to a broader consolidation of power for Mr. Ahmadinejad and his allies in domestic affairs... American officials have occasionally seemed perplexed about who is guiding policy in Iran; just last month, a senior American official said it appeared that Mr. Larijani’s influence was on the rise. IRNA reported that the president appointed Saeed Jalili, the deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, to replace Mr. Larijani. Mr. Jalili is an ally of the president and is considered by political analysts here to be a more hard-line figure than his predecessor.

When the weakest of weak sanctions were imposed on Iran at the beginning of the year, the foreign policy left leapt to scream about the virtues of a diplomatic solution. Sample:

* CFR Jan 2007: "Khameini and other elements within Iran's ruling class appear intent on reining in Ahmadinejad."

* STRATFOR Jan 2007: "The Iranians are moving toward a conciliatory approach on all fronts, which has been made possible in part by what appears to be a reining in of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ultraconservative faction.

* AntiWar.com, Jan 2007: "Pragmatists in Iran are pressuring the country's top decision-maker, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to find a face-saving way out of this situation before the standoff with the West escalates further."

This is the basic line that the foreign policy left has been running for well over a decade and a half. Moderation is just around the corner, if only we give it a little more time. And the State Department has a neat little arrangement where they feed quotes about moderation to foreign policy analysts and then use the reports of foreign policy analysts in meetings to continue justifying their policies (cf. that the idiot who said last month that Larijani’s influence was on the rise, triggering a cascade of "Iran is nothing to worry about" reports). And it's been wrong every single time. But at least it's not unsophisticated! After the jump, something even more depressing.