Two major developments about Iran in recent days: one providing a diplomatic opening, the other showing how the Bush Administration won't take advantage of it.

The first involves Iran's elections for local offices as well as the Assembly of Experts, the body which appoints the Supreme Leader.

(The Supreme Leader, Ali al-Khamenei, is the true power in Iran's system of government, not the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

The elections amounted to a showdown between the right-wing forces led by Ahmadinejad and a coalition of pragmatic conservatives and reformers, led by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Ahmadinejad lost.

He was not on the ballot and remains in office. But his allies ran poorly, particularly in the Assembly, and his political position is weakened.

This was not simply a populist revolt. The Iranian political establishment wanted to marginalize Ahmadinejad too.

The NY Times reported on Sunday:

In the days before the general election ... some candidates [for the Assembly] allied with Mr. Ahmadinejad's clerical mentor were eliminated as unqualified.

The body that approves candidates is controlled by the Supreme Leader (these are not quite free elections), indicating that Ahmadinejad's political fate was influenced from up high.

An analyst for the Asia Times (via American Footprints) summed up:

What is happening now is the moderate/pragmatists reaching a more solid position allied with the reformists - with the extreme right held in check by a supreme leader more supreme than ever.

Although, if the Supreme Leader is seriously ill, the big victor in the election is pragmatic conservative Rafsanjani, described in the Asia Times as "the eternal insider, relative 'friend of the West,' ... opportunist and king of the dodgy deal." Rafsanjani is now positioned to be the next Supreme Leader, instead of Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor.

What's the American right-wing reaction to this significant development?

For the National Review, it was denial.

Yesterday, it published a nonsensical, obsolete piece about how a singularly powerful Ahmadinejad has "made the obliteration of the State of Israel a major governmental priority," pointing to his Holocaust denial confab from last week.

Post-election, such analysis is laughable.

Ahmadinejad's conference, timed right before the election, clearly was an attempt to boost turnout for his allies by pandering to anti-Israel sentiments.

And it failed.

Ahmadinejad hasn't made obliterating Israel a top priority. As the AP reported, the big election winners are, "supporters of Iran's cleric-led power structure who are angry at Ahmadinejad, saying he has needlessly provoked the West with harsh rhetoric..."

Another conservative reaction is dismay, as evidenced by Hot Air's Allahpundit:

It's not good news long term. The more "centrist" the regime is, the more Iranians will tolerate it. An apocalyptic, sharia-babblin' fundie in the top spot could be just what the doctor ordered for stirring up a popular uprising.

But the most important reaction is from the White House.

Which is blocking a former colleague from publishing an op-ed in the NYT, promoting negotiation with Iran.

The Washington Note published a statement from the censored Flynt Leverett Saturday. The Next Hurrah sought to recreate the stifled op-ed Sunday.

Yesterday, Leverett spoke out at a forum broadcast on C-Span, and the White House response was pathetic.

Why would the White House seek to unconstitutionally squash public debate about changing course in Iran, just before an election that could (and did) create an opening to change course?

Because the Bushies are dead-set on staying the course for "regime change."

They don't want the American public hear they're committing the foreign policy equivalent of "medical malpractice" (Leverett's words yesterday) continually ignoring diplomatic openings that could resolve disputes over Iran's nuclear program and support for anti-Israel groups.

There have been other opportunities to engage the more moderate elements of Iran's government, but with Ahmadinejad knocked down a peg, now we have a big one.

The American people need to know this (the media have begun to give Leverett's story a little attention) so when the White House deliberately blows this opportunity, they'll know what needs to be fixed.