[Psudo]

Kjorteo: There are times when giving legitimacy to the other view is more damage than the effects of the negotiations help. It's a judgment call whether that's the case in dealing with Iran; I'm undecided on that specific issue. But to refuse ever to break off formal relations entirely is intellectually shallow; scheduling formal negotiations is just as much a political action as the contents of the negotiations.

mogman1: I don't see the harm in referring to a nation as an individual entity so long as you don't forget it's a metaphor.

As for Bush's disinterest in the shoe-thrower's motivations (assuming it was more than illusion), I offer you the same point I offer Kjorteo: listening to a view is a political act in itself, and one that may have more political ramifications than the view itself.

The general frustration and anger obviously expressed by the shoe-thrower is not politically meaningful. Is he upset because of sympathies with Saddam and the Ba'athists? Because Bush has discredited an otherwise worthwhile enterprise? Because he was emotionally strained from a personal tragedy and "just snapped"? Each of these would require a different response, but without more information one cannot know which response to take. The obvious aspects of his actions are not informative or useful. The whole incident might be too minor to be relevant politically, except by people (such as yourself) who see broader symbolism in it.

As for negotiations altering the status quo, they don't inherently alter the status quo for the better. Sometimes it's necessary to stop fighting and "take a break" (Friends reference) to allow tempers to cool before trying again. We probably shouldn't do anything big, dramatic, and stupid in the intervening time, but maybe we can re-establish negotiations at a later time with more success because of a natural change in political climate.

As for appealing to the Iranian people, they already widely disagree with their government. Iranians quite commonly describe themselves as a nation where the people disagree with the government. It has often been argued that the only thing necessary for a moderation of Iran is to wait a generation for the hardliners to be replaced by moderates from the mainstream. From that view, breaking off negotiations is a perfectly legitimate negotiation strategy.

[Kjorteo]

Aww, man, this after I already gave mogman reputation for the last post. Well, suffice it to say that is an excellent post...again.

Anyway, Psudo, the problem with ignoring our enemies is that I'm not sure we can trust them to "do anything big, dramatic, and stupid in the intervening time." We wanted to sever diplomatic ties with Iran because of their nuclear program, but did we actually think the sheer fact that we weren't talking to them alone (ignoring the threat of sparking a war for now, since that's an entirely different motivator) was going to make them feel guilty enough to stop? This is why I'm for more talks--granting Iran legitimacy isn't necessarily a bad thing (it's been around long enough that it's basically legitimate whether the United States likes them or not, and acknowledging them at least looks better in the eyes of their people than giving them the Cuba treatment) and we could have been actively trying to talk them down out of the nuclear program, perhaps with mutually agreeable concessions and such. I'm not saying unquestioningly do whatever Ahmadinejad says, but at least hear them out and see if there's anything we could possibly work with.

I will concede there are times where acknowledging rogue organizations is more harmful than beneficial and that we shouldn't sit down with just any old terrorist group that declares themselves in charge of a country, but I consider the current balance way too far toward the side of not talking even when we should. We should at least be more open to Iran, Cuba, etc.

[Psudo]

Cutting off diplomacy isn't the same as "ignoring our enemies". We cut off diplomatic relations with the Soviets often enough during the cold war, but we never ignored them.

Also, I didn't mean lending legitimacy to their government (which is already clearly established), but lending legitimacy to their present policy views (especially the new and controversial ones).

I don't know for sure, but I suspect we have more diplomacy with Cuba than you recognize. It has to be pretty difficult to operate a military prison on their island without a little diplomacy.