Considering that the Supreme Leader controls foreign policy, security, intelligence, and can dismiss the president, why does anyone pay attention to Ahmadinejad rather than to Khamenei?

Wikipedia: Ali Khamenei's foreign Policy

Ayatollah Khamenei is known for his radical anti-Western policies. He has repeatedly denounced the idea of talks with the United States. During and after the US-led war on Iraq, he was sharply critical of Washington's policies.[18] On the 2000 al-Quds Day Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for the destruction of Israel.[19]

The last reference is to this:
CNN: 2 million flood Times Square as U.S. greets year 2000 (January 1, 2000)

The Year 2000 arrived in Iran hours after millions took to the streets to protest Israel's control of Jerusalem, the city where Muslims believe Prophet Mohammed began his journey to heaven.

The demonstrations came on the last Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which was declared "Al-Quds Day" in 1979. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem.

Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for the destruction of Israel, saying it was the only way to solve the problems of the Middle East.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

Wikipedia: The Closed Loop of Power

According to current election laws, a body of 12 experts called the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The majority of the members of this body are appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, this council vets also Assembly of Experts candidates, which in turn in supervise and elect the Supreme Leader, which ultimately creates a closed loop of power.

In addition, current elections law requires Assembly of Experts candidates to be religious mujtahids, which greatly narrows the potential field.

Neither of these two laws are mandated by the constitution and are ordinary laws passed by the Parliament or the Assembly of Experts, which therefore can theoretically be reversed. However, despite efforts of many political activists, it has proven to be practically impossible to do so until now.

Many Iranian reformists (including Abdollah Noori) consider this to be the core legal obstacle for a truly democratic system in Iran.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

I would even go one step further, on the issue that has brought Iran to the forefront of international news ... Consider that:

• Iran is about to have the bomb, and nothing will stop them from having it (an invasion will probably delay them, but short of a coalition broader than Desert Storm, the US will not be able to keep more than the coast and the Ormuz straits under control, so let's consider that the Iranian bomb endeavour is really unstoppable)
  
  
• The Iranian goverment feels the nation's security is at stakes, with the US military present in all neighboring countries and on the other side of the gulf, except Pakistan but the present dictator is US-friendly in as much as he can keep his own population under control,
  
  
• The Iranian people probably agrees to the fact that they are circled by the US, and that it is a threat, not an opportunity for freedom (arguably, it's mullah brainwashing them that the US is evil, but I tend to respect other nations views of the world as long as they don't threaten me personally, so I will assume that they are right in thinking they have nothing to win in trading mullahs for pepsi colahs...)
  
  
• On the same trend, and again without any opinion poll to back me, I believe the Iranian people also support the bomb endeavour...
  
  

Having said so, I have some moral rectitude problems / logical problems with the policy of the West towards Iran:

First, the old stoician doctrine told us that to avoid great frustration in life, one should "desire what is unavoidable". Therefore, I think we should seriously start thinking about life with nuclear Iran (like Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, possibly North Korea...)

Second, I am deeply uncomfortable with the whole non-proliferation concept: established nuclear powers building elaborate legal constructs disguised as moral principles, that say no other nation has the right to build a similar nuclear deterrent arsenal ? It has always been nonsense to me, and now it is proven inefficient at that !

Dubya will keep saying the Iran campaign to come, is about regime change, war on terror, promoting democracy for a better world... But my position on this is much simpler: do we believe, at the deep of ourselves, that we can live in peace with Iran, keeping our nukes ready in a MAD posture like the cold war, while still trading (oil mostly) with them ?

If yes (my opinion), then just let them have the bomb, state clearly what bad moves will get them nuked (I'm from a country with a nuclear force, and I worked in it, so I may not be in the same "reality" as everybody on EP), be very respectful for each others' spheres of influence, and live with it. If Dubya want to start a disaster, let him go alone, we shouldn't even be taking this to the UN Security Council with him (I believe this is pretty much the realpolitik reasoning in Putin's mind, but I still find it the most consistent attitude).

If no, why ponder any longer ? nuking Iran now is the only option. Except it's a chain reaction...

Pierre