OK, I'll say it again. No one has offered a cogent response yet:

The police negotiate with criminals in very intense crisis situations in which there is a high possibility of injury or death on both sides. No one accuses them of “appeasement” or of “legitimizing” the criminals. There are no preconditions, as none are possible. There are no “low level talks” because there isn't time (and besides, what sense does it make to give your second string a shot at it first?)

Negotiation has become a highly evolved strategy with a rich and diverse toolkit. It works an amazing amount of the time. The alternative, from a law enforcement standpoint, is to say “we've got you surrounded, you're outgunned, and we're going to kill you. So do your worst.”

I know I won't convince some commentors here of anything, but it is my hope that readers with more open minds will start thinking about negotiation as a serious tool for resolving conflict, and not some sissy soft liberal “appeasement” strategy. Remember, real world tough guys with guns, actual law enforcement heroes do this every day: they negotiate with the most sociopathic and dangerous people imaginable. And they win. They're not “naive” or stupid or inexperienced or exercising bad judgment. I wish some of them would throw this misrepresentation of the art of diplomacy right back in the GOP's faces. It IS tough, it IS effective and it DOES work, even with crazy people. Especially with crazy people.

The approach of threatening, of not engaging, and of attacking is a much riskier strategy, both in law enforcement and in international relations.

I hope the Obama campaign can get across to voting Americans that negotiation is not a gift to our enemies. Negotiation concedes nothing! Is a perfectly valid, legitimate and proven method of resolving conflict.

Now, as several here have taken a very inflexible position about negotiation, what is your solution? Bomb Iran? Is that really what you're suggesting? Unleashing missiles against a sovereign nation, possibly even nuclear weapons, threatening our own soldiers downwind in Afghanistan with radiation poisoning? Inciting the righteous wrath of the entire Islamic world, of all of our enemies and most of our friends? Or do you have some third option that you haven't stated. Please. Share it with us.

When the SC ruled that money =free speech, the power of moneyed interest groups was encased in stone.
So far, all efforts to insulale the government from the deep pockets have failed
Only shaming and the power of persuasion by people of oonscience remain to bolster hope.

We can talk abou this in the abstract, but realisticlly, we'll be lucky if we move an inch in a new direction in foreigh affairs. An inch, however would be a start, and maybe it can be extended over time and successive presidendies.

Can't argue with that.

The trouble is that one powerful part of our society will not let a US leader do that.
Any attempt to be nuanced and diplomatic (what I would call reasonable) would immediately cause a political uproar, and consequent party fights.

The Cubans in Florida contol our Cuban policy (which is stupid, IMO, AIPAC controls our alliance with Israel, conservatives demand tough posturing isntead of pragmatic solutions, and so on.

It's all about which group has hte money to lobby for votes.

We can talk abou this in the abstract, but realisticlly, we'll be lucky if we move an inch in a new direction in foreigh affairs. An inch, however would be a start, and maybe it can be extended over time and successive presidendies.
For today, I choose the candidate who seems willing to start on that first inch.

Maybe I'm looking at this issue too sequentially. Maybe what I should be saying is that some unsavory leaders should be given a little more diplomatic “love” than others but use true diplomacy nevertheless.

It's a dumb statement, and certainly leaves him open to the criticism you're making- but I think he's actually just reiterating a common conservative belief that the initial hostages who were released on Reagan's inauguration day were set free because Reagan had signalled a hard line approach. There weren't any arms traded for those hostages.

Still, I'll grant you- it was a dumb thing to say.

But to play this irrelevant game a little more…

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.” – John McCain

Yeah… he wouldn't sit down with em. He'd just give em weapons

Rambie and ChrisWWW, I just feel there are other “enemies” of America that provide a easier path to success than Ahmadinejad.

If Iran is as dangerous as the wingnuts believe, then it is of the utmost importance that we have a running dialog with them. It's not a question of ease or difficulty but of necessity. Wars – take WWI for example – have been started because of a lack of communication between the major players. Why would we ever dare make the same mistakes again?

I've always thought that Hugo Chavez should be the first “enemy” that should be extended direct talks.

I imagine you put quotes around 'enemy' because you realize that Venezuela doesn't threaten us in any way at all.

======

Well, since Obama has already likened himself to Kennedy, why would we not assume that a meeting between him and Ahmadinejad might not turn out as disastrously as Kennedy's summit with Kruschev in Vienna?

Well since McCain has likened himself to Reagan, maybe he intends to sell weapons to Iran? Do not pass 'go,' do not collect $200.

Even he seems to have realized that his debate answer was foolish (and Biden certainly has said as much.)

I'm glad to see you're such a big Biden fan these days

Part of diplomacy doesn't even require being in the same country. It begins the minute an official, or public figure, opens his mouth in front of the media, because what is said is immediately dissemianted around the globe.

Because Bush has been so tone deaf about the words he chooses, the only way to signal a change is to use different words. And remember, when a public figure is speaking about Iran in public, he is inot only speaking to Iran, he is speaking to the whole world.

The dificulty Obama got caught in, I believe, is that it appears to be impossible, in this political climate, to speak to the world and to his domesic audience at the same time. At home, the wolves wait to pounce on every word and to parse and twiist it to death.
For the US, Israel and the world, expressing a williness to go to great lengths to avert a cataclismic confornation Is certainly better diplomacy than ''bomb', bomb , Iran' or 'obliterate 'Iran'. Everyone knows we could do both, so the public threats serve nothing but to encourage Iran's tenacity and alienate other countries that would, unwillingly, be impacted. Remember the other ountries listening, who are scared of what the US might do next.

Simultaneously, threats give too many people the false illusion that actually bombing Iran would provide them with safery and peace. That can not happen, and its dangerous to give people a false sense of what's at stake. That's how we got into the mess known as Iraq, and we shouldn't repeat the same mistake again. Had we had a more realistic idea of what's at stake in opting to go to war in iraq, chances are good, we would be more united on that issue today. No one could claim to have been fooled, at least.

Even Keistol, speaking to a Jewish, AIPAC-type audience on C-Span said that when it comes to executing foreign policy, the difference between Obama and McCain wasn't that enormous, it was more a difference of degrees and on emphais (words).Of course, Kristol is a 'bomb, bomb' man and made his preference clear, misguided as it is.

Iran has heard so many threats, I think it's completely immune to them. We should just shut up and if everything else fails, just do it.
Perhaps a rare, but pointed reference to 'all options' would be a good reminder, and it would carry more impact because of its rarity.

From everything else Obama has said, I see no reason to doubt his readiness for drasitc action., if it can't be averted. He is simply trying to set a different tone to the voice of America
Unfortunatley, I think the word parsers and those comforted by the false promise in verbal bravura, will probably force him to be more explicit, and thus tip off Iran as to our strategy.

All that being said, Ahmadinejad and Company will have to be approached. But locking up solid and productive relations with a Chavez would show the world that an Obama presidency is damn serious about diplomacy.

Now if he said that, I would admire Obama.

But yes, he did initially say he'd meet personally with Ahmedinejad, without precondition, within his first year in office.

Also, I agree with ChrisWWW, Obama isn't going to cave into the likes of Ahmadinejad.

'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' – John McCain

'Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will…' – Norman Podhoretz

Anyways, I think you're totally missing the point of negotiations and diplomacy. Public relations isn't the goal. And besides, I have faith that Obama can go toe to toe intellectually with anyone on the world stage.