The same suggestive stuff on Iran was in the NYTimes yesterday, though their article also has stronger countering analysis:

Drawing a Line on Syria, U.S. Keeps Eye on Iran Policy
By Robert F. Worth, New York Times, September 2/3, 2013

[....] Two recent diplomatic ventures have raised speculation about a possible back channel between Washington and Tehran. Last week, Jeffrey Feltman, a high State Department official in President Obama’s first term who is now a senior envoy at the United Nations, visited Iran to meet with the new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and discussed possible reactions to an American airstrike in Syria.

At the same time, the sultan of Oman, who has often served as an intermediary between the United States and Iran, was in Tehran meeting with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Neither Mr. Feltman nor Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said of Oman has said anything about carrying messages between the two governments. Still, those overtures, along with some surprisingly mild noises from Iranian leaders, have raised hopes that Washington may be able to thread the needle — to strike Syria without compromising efforts toward an Iranian-American détente before meetings at the United Nations General Assembly this month.

[....]

One thing is clear: the statements by Iran’s leaders have shifted from earlier this year, when high-ranking Iranian officials said a foreign attack on Syria would be treated as an attack on Iran itself. There may even be some relief at the prospect of more direct American involvement in the Syrian conflict, which has occasionally been cast as “Iran’s Vietnam,” some analysts say.

“The reality is that Obama’s military action will make the Syrian tragedy his and not Iran’s,” wrote Farideh Farhi, an Iran scholar at the University of Hawaii, in an analysis published online at Lobelog.com. “And in Iran’s postelection environment, in which the country has moved toward national reconciliation — both among the elite and between the government and the population — nothing suits the Islamic Republic better than divesting itself from this issue quietly.”

For all their mutual antipathy, the United States and Iran may ultimately find common ground in Syria.

“The United States and Iran are fighting a zero-sum proxy war in Syria at the moment,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “If and when Assad falls, the two sides will have a mutual adversary in radical Sunni jihadists.”

Pretty amazing news:

Iran ex-president hints at divisions over support for Bashar al-Assad
By Monavar Khalaj in Tehran, Financial Times, September 3, 2013

Comments by a former Iranian president and pillar of the country’s political establishment have shone a light on possible disagreements within the country’s elite over its support for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

In a hotly disputed statement posted on the internet, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s former president, accused Mr Assad’s government of using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in what analysts saw as a warning to the government to rethink its support for its main Arab ally.

“God bless the people of Syria . . . they were subjected to chemical weapons by their own government and now they have to expect a foreign invasion,” Mr Rafsanjani, who heads the powerful Expediency Council, said last week at an event in the northern province of Mazandaran.

The remarks, quoted by the semi-official ILNA news agency, sparked an uproar in Iran, where officials have accused Mr Assad’s opponents of being behind the attack. They were quickly scrubbed from the news website. Later, Marzieh Afkham, Iran’s foreign ministry spokeswoman, denied the comments, saying they were “distorted”.

But an audio recording that appeared on Tuesday confirmed Mr Rafsanjani’s accusation that the Assad regime had launched chemical attacks against the Syrian people, a view shared by the US, Britain and France [....]

Hat tip for the above:

“Mr Rafsanjani has said what millions of Iranians believe in their heart..."+other daring quotes from Zibakalam in FT http://t.co/eHIDcnfBvJ

— TEHRANBUREAU.COM (@TehranBureau) September 4, 2013

and followed up with this tweet translation indicating it's all true that this discussion is truly happening in Iran (MP=Member of Parliament):

Iran MP Motahari: Rafsanjani must have believed it was in the national interest to make Syria comment http://t.co/GdmBf0U3TR H/T @nikahang

— TEHRANBUREAU.COM (@TehranBureau) September 4, 2013

Thanks back, glad to see someone else who sees in the news what I see.

BTW, I don't for a minute believe some of the media spin that's still suggests Obama/Kerry are thinking "fuck whatever the U.N. does." That he chose the Congressional option says just the opposite and furthermore, lines up with most analysis of his presidency as the presidency that can never make up its mind. People read too much into public bluster.

Of course, all the figures involved are going to bluster and spin, they need to start from an advocacy position, that's the way all this works. Would people rather they just do actual war rather than have wars of words? There's gonna be rough language and lots of threats, that's the way this thing works. Matter of fact, this is just intuition, and may be totally wrong, but I am starting to think all the military stuff was/is bluster meant to scare the bejeesus out of everybody to get something to start happening. Obama never actually said what he intends to do on it. He's got "plans," just like Putin. Plans are plans. Sending ships are sending ships (which often works to scare people, especially people on the internet, works better on them than it does on leaders.)  All threat, no actions yet. The only thing so far that went counter to my intuitions on this front is McCain and Graham getting on board after an hour with Obama at the White House.

"A U-turn in Iranian diplomacy occurred today":

Rouhani outflanks hardliners on Syria, nuclear talks
By Ramin Mostaghim and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times via Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 5, 2013

Tehran: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears to be outmanoeuvring hard-liners with his move to take control of stalled nuclear negotiations and in curbing bombastic declarations to defend ally Syria from threatened US airstrikes.

In sharp contrast with the bellicose posturing of his predecessor, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Rouhani has kept expectations low that Iran will provide military aid to Syrian President Bashar Assad if Western forces attack his government.

Another former president and influential backer of Mr Rouhani, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, last week was reported to have publicly blamed Dr Assad's forces for an alleged chemical weapons attack August 21 on the suburbs of Damascus that reportedly killed hundreds of civilians.

[...]

Analysts hailed the shift on nuclear talks as an opportunity for Mr Rouhani to make good on his campaign pledge to improve relations with the West.

"A U-turn in Iranian diplomacy occurred today," said Saeed Laylaz, an economist and political analyst. "This is very important, as we understand it to mean that the supreme leader (Khamenei) is allowing the Foreign Ministry to handle the nuclear talks. ... We can see a new chapter has already opened vis-a-vis relations with the West."

Mr Laylaz also pointed to Mr Rouhani's modest pledge on Wednesday to support Syria with humanitarian aid if Dr Assad's forces come under attack for the alleged use of poison gas.

If Syria is targeted with Western airstrikes, "the Islamic Republic of Iran will do its religious and humanitarian duty and send food and medicine," Mr Rouhani told the Assembly of Experts, a panel of Islamic theologians that chooses and advises the supreme leader.

"Iran will not do anything to openly announce assistance to the Syrian regime if Syria is attacked by the United States," said Nader Karimi Joni, an independent analyst and chief editor of the sociopolitical magazine Gozaresh. He and Mr Laylaz interpreted Mr Rouhani's reserved support for Syria as following through on a campaign promise to give priority to Iranians' desire for an end to their international isolation.

The nuclear policy takeover "reinforces the message of Rouhani during the election that Iran is looking to turn around its relations with the world and that he appreciates that the only viable mechanism for doing that is re-engaging in the nuclear talks in a very different way than it has in the past eight years," said Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"Moving the portfolio from the Supreme National Security Council to the Foreign Ministry certainly underscores Rouhani's personal identification with the progress of the talks,"Ms Maloney said.

"Most importantly, this puts at the helm of the talks the Iranian who is best positioned to engage in serious and productive dialogue with Washington," Maloney said of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, a former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations who has spent much of his adult life in the United States.

Still, it remains unclear whether Rouhani and the moderates will prevail in keeping their distance from Assad.

But Iranian leaders have been hedging their support for the Syrian government since the start of the civil war there, Maloney said, "and it is quite clear that there is no consensus in the Iranian leadership that Iran should be defending Assad."