ANOTHER PRECINCT HEARD FROM

Posted at 8:46 a.m. ET

Terrorism expert Con Coughlin, writing in London's Telegraph,  informs us of another exciting vote for Obama.  The man just seems to have this...this magnetism.  I don't understand it:

Where will it end, this procession of the great, the good and the not-so-good showing their support for Barack Obama's bid to become President? Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, half the Tory front bench and Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, have all declared in favour of the Democrats' nominee. But perhaps the most revealing was yesterday's confirmation that Mr Obama is the preferred candidate of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You know, we should give them electoral votes.  For the Dems, they could replace Texas.

An insight into Tehran's thinking was provided by Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis, the Iranian parliament which is dominated by conservative hardline followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranians, say Mr Larijani, favour Mr Obama because he is "more flexible and rational" than John McCain, whose attitude towards a country that still tops the State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring regimes was given away by his "Bomb Iran" version of the Beach Boys' classic Barbara Ann.

By "more flexible and rational" Mr Larijani means, of course, that an Obama White House is less likely to bomb Iran for its failure to halt its nuclear enrichment programme.

Less likely?  Probably an understatement.

Iran has been enriching uranium at its facility at Natanz for 18 months, and even the most dovish observers concede that, at the present rate of progress, Iran should be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead by next year.

Whether Iran is still pursuing its attempts to develop nuclear weapons is hotly debated among the West's intelligence agencies, with the body of available intelligence now contradicting last year's CIA National Intelligence Estimate, suggesting Iran had halted its military programme in 2003.

Remember the rejoicing on the left when that estimate came out?  That's the attitude we'll have with Obama in office.

Mr Obama may have made some rousing comments when he addressed a pro-Israel lobby in Washington in June, telling his audience that he would do "everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon", but he has also made it clear that he wants to negotiate with the Iranians rather than confront them. Mr McCain, on the other hand, favours robust action, starting with a tough sanctions regime and, if that fails, military action.

Small wonder, then, that Iran favours Mr Obama for the White House, especially as the Democrats have a disastrous record of negotiating with Iran and getting nothing in return, dating from Jimmy Carter's ineffectual attempts to free the Americans held hostage after the storming of their embassy in Tehran in 1979.

The magic name has been invoked:  Jimmy Carter.  If that doesn't scare you, go immediately to the nearest emergency room.  Have them try to detect a pulse.

Iran now poses a far greater threat than it did in 2003, when its nuclear programme was nowhere near as advanced.

Which is why, irrespective of who wins next month's presidential contest, the Iran file will be at the top of the list of national security issues facing the new president. Mr Obama's preference might be for more talking, which is precisely why Tehran is backing his candidacy. But he will not have that luxury. So far as Iran is concerned, the time for talking has passed. It's time now for some action.

I think Coughlin, who is a fine analyst, underestimates Obama's capacity for inaction.  He may just vote "present" on Iran the way he did so many times in the Illinois legislature.  When the going gets tough, the Obamans get out.  I fear he may out-Carter Carter, and be proud of it.

Do we know what we're about to do next Tuesday?

October 27, 2008.