Ahem, but, um, lack of popularity or mandate didn't stop Bush (or Olmert for that matter) from actually going to war and devastating other countries with no clear victory or point.  Why should it stop Ahmadinejad? 

Olmert may go to war again (many people say with Syria, some say Lebanon again, some say Iran) to bolster his tenuous hold on power (his approval rating here is between 0 and 3%!!!!)  Bush invaded first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and who knows who's next, despite his support even in the military getting thinner by the day.  Why should Ahmadinejad-- who operates in a considerably less democratic system, albeit sharing power with theocrats-- be any more beholden to the will of the people, or to rational decision making, or to accountability?  It's a weak argument at best, Josh.  Leaders can and do go ahead and take their countries into wars and disasters, with or without the consent of the people. Especially when they feel their power flagging (see, say, Milosevic!) 

If anything, declining support for Ahmadinejad may make him MORE likely to provoke war-- or has already.  Just as abducting Israeli soldiers provoked a war for Hezbollah, abducting the British sailors could easily have escalated to war with GB or the coalition-- it may only be luck that Iran got away with that one.

I agree with mmausner on this one. The weakness of a leader's support is no safeguard against war. The danger is increased when we're talking about nuclear missles. If a President or Dictator orders the military to attack a neighbor with the full forec of their conventional forces, there is a chance that the militry or lack of popular support would slow or stop the attack. That same leader would have a better chance of launching a nuclear strike against an enemy, since the attack prepartions can be done relatively secretly and quickly and involve less people (especially if the dleivery system is through a terorist attack rather than a fleet of bombers, etc.)

I think this is why it's often usseful to restate a person's argument before you attack it.  My argument above--if broken down for, say, a critical thinking exercise, would have all to do with transparency of language used by politicians.  The thesis is not mine, its as old as the hills and you've heard it from Orwell time and again.  My point was that Olmert and Prodi's statements were silly from a factual perspective if one pays attention to their language.  Never once did I say the unpopularity of Ahmadinejad was a "safeguard against war."  The post had nothing whatever to do with whether or not Iran is dangerous.  The punchline was actually that these guys are "blowhards" and that they should not have nuclear arms.   On that, good commenters, I think we clearly agree which makes your points above somewhat extraneous.  Unless of course you'd care to argue against my argument and make the case that Prodi and Olmert's statements were logical and/or representative of an actual state of affairs.   Argue persuasively that Ahamdinejad is the true voice of Iran or that being a regional power necesitates reliquishing nuclear arms and then we've got ourselves a conversation. 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iran.poll/index.html

Certainly, when talking about nukes, Ahmadinejad is NOT the voice of Iran.  Based on this poll at least-- 80% of Iranians support inspections, and engagement and aid with the west. 

However, that being said, Ahmadinejad IS the elected leader, however unpopular now, and just as with Bush, current unpopularity doesn't stop a leader from continuing to wage unpopular and self-destructive wars. It doesn't matter whether he is the true 'voice of Iran' or not; what matters is that he's in power, and along with the Ayatollahs (who also say genuinely disturbing things) DOES have the power to take his country down a self-destructive and world-damaging path.  

Hoping he won't, and even hoping that the evident 80% majority of moderate Iranians will restrain him, does NOT constitute rational policy-making or defense planning on the part of the West and Israel.  We have to plan on and deal with the reality of leadership, not what it should be or what we would wish it to be.

Not so different from Israel itself, on that level: the incompetent lame-duck Olmert has approval ratings between 0 and 3%, yet remains in power and is about to release hundreds of terrorists and give amnesty to hundreds more including public enemy number one, zachariay zubeidi, responsible for more dead Israelis than probably anyone alive.  Self-destructive behavior by elected-yet-wildly-unpopular leaders is sadly not a unique phenomenon...