Andy, we may exhaust the patience of our readers if we haven’t already, but, lets try one more time at looking at this from the perspective of the world as it is, not how you would like it to be.1. Ahmedinejad is not a perp in a prison cell, much as you and I might like him to be. He’s at the head (we can legitimately debate the extent of his authority) of a large nation with certain significant advantages (oil, trouble-making capability in Iraq you know how it goes) that will almost certainly go nuclear within the next two years. Our perp doesn’t have much on his side other than your (possible) unwillingness to spend too much time on his case. Ahmedinejad has plenty that is going for him. I wish he didn’t, but he does.2. Grandly saying “there are times when you never negotiate” sounds very good, but it is an example of the sort of pulpit talk that has got the US into the sort of mess in which it now finds itself. The US objective should, ultimately, be to hasten the end of the Iranian theocracy. If holding talks can, however theoretically, be a potential weapon in our armory to achieve that goal, why rule it out? If it’s a matter of some “principle” then the old phrase about cutting off your nose to spite your face rather comes to mind. The mistake, of course, would be to use talks as an excuse to do nothing (we can both agree on that, at least). And why could talks be a weapon? Well, I’ll give you one reason (there are others). If the folks around here who claim that the Iranian people are thoroughly fed up with Ahmedinejad are correct (are they?), then it is vital that his opportunities to appeal to Iranian nationalist pride are kept to a minimum. The more America is seen to be talking (however bogus the talks), the more difficult it is for him to portray the US as “bullying” Iran. If, on the other hand, he can portray (however unreasonably) the US as throwing its weight around, he can pose as defender of the nation, wrap himself in the flag and so on. As many dictators in the past have discovered, that’s a trick that works. You might want to make a fine moral point. Fine but I’d rather see Ahmedinejad gone.3. Talking with untrustworthy people is “pointless”? Well, I guess Nixon shouldn’t have gone and talked to that nasty Chairman Mao then. 4. Are we already at war with Iran? Yes, in a sense. We were also at some sort of war with the Soviet Union and China for most of the second half of the Twentieth Century. Both regimes were monstrous, genocidal and wanted the US eliminated. Amongst the people who found reasons to talk to them were those peacenik appeasers Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.