He has survived insurrection on the streets of Tehran. But is President Ahmadi-Nejad in danger of losing the critical support of the Iranian establishment, for the most unlikely to reasons – he is not hardline enough on Israel?

This seems an odd charge to level against the Holocaust-denying president, who has spoken longingly of a day when Israel no longer exists. But his decision to appoint Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei as his first vice-president and right-hand man has provoked a backlash among fundamentalists and hardliners. This morning’s FT suggest that Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader himself, may also be demanding that ADJ “make a U-turn on the appointment”. The reason that Mashaei has provoked such fury is because he has suggested that Iran “is a friend of the Israeli people.”

Of course, nobody is suggesting that President Ahmadi-Nejad appointed Mashaei because he agrees with him about Israel. Still, it would be satisfyingly weird if ADJ ran into political trouble for not being anti-Israeli enough. It also shows that any tendency to assume that the Israel-Iran problem would wither away with the downfall of Ahamdi-Nejad is well wide of the mark.

Meanwhile connoisseurs of left-wing intellectual contortions might like this letter from The Guardian, on why the Iranian demonstrations should give no succour to capitalists.

It is always interesting – and sometimes chastening – to have journalistic musings subjected to academic examination. Sean Safford has performed this service, by taking a look at the Miller-Rachman list of revolutionary pointers. He thinks we are both too optimistic about the potential for change in Iran.

What does it take to make a successful revolution? That question is clearly weighing on the mind of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In his long rant at last Friday’s prayers at Tehran university, Iran’s supreme leader accused foreign governments of trying to foment a revolt in his country. He claims that foreigners are using the uprisings in the former Soviet Union as a model. “They are comparing the Islamic Republic with Georgia,” he complained.

Mr Khamenei is right about one thing. The comparison between events in Iran and the “colour revolutions” in the former USSR is certainly suggestive. Andrew Miller, a journalist at The Economist who witnessed the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan has come up with a useful “checklist” of some of the factors that can help a revolution to succeed .

● “Critical mass”: small demonstrations of 5,000 people can be ignored or suppressed. But half a million people in the streets is another matter.
● Weak or divided security services.
● Some independent media.
● Money.
● Serious corruption, which Mr Miller argues is “generally the main mass motivator”.
● Opposition leaders who have served a stint in government.
● A history of rebellion from which lessons can be learnt.
● Strong support in the capital city.
● A rigged election that provides a spark for the revolt.

 The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.

The other night I saw Henry Kissinger on television arguing that the likeliest outcome in Iran is that the regime ultimately prevails. I’m afraid it’s beginning to look that way to me as well.

Khamenei’s hardline speech today underlined that the pro ADJ forces have no intention of backing down. The demonstrations in Tehran continue and more are scheduled for the weekend. But, if the demonstrators are getting nowhere, they might gradually lose their enthusiasm. And if the size of the crowds dwindle, so will the sense of momentum behind the protests. If the regime is “sensible”, they will just try and wait the opposition out now.

More violence by the security forces and militias, however, could destabilise things further. The opposition movement already has its martyrs. Withour risking people’s lives, the opposition has to find some new way to give the movement a focus – beyond the demand for a recount or a new election. Sit-down protests, hunger strikes and occupations, a la Tiananmen might be too risky.

The other thing to watch for, in these situations, is signs of division within the ruling camp. Iran’s clerical establishment is clearly divided. But if they start to manoeuvre against each other, that could open the way to change.

In the meantime, I recommend this splendid piece by Anna Fifield in the FT, about the mood among the under-30s in Tehran,