Cutting Diplomatic Ties Resolves Nothing: Unconditional diplomacy is best.

"there is always a mutually beneficial outcome which can be achieved through unconditional diplomacy" As I pointed out in my opening arguments, this is certainly not the case. No compromise which does not include Iran halting its nuclear program, cutting off funds to terrorist organizations and the insurgency in Iraq, and ceasing their anti-Israeli rhetoric, cannot possibly be accepted. Why, then, should we waste our time talking to an enemy country (and I use the term "enemy" loosely. Clearly there are countries with which we have no formal diplomatic relations which pose no real threat of any kind, e.g. Taiwan) if they are not willing to make these concessions? What I think you're trying to say is that by establishing preconditions, we are essentially saying that we are not willing to give these countries anything in return for these concessions. If I'm understanding you correctly, then I certainly see your point. However, there are two sides to every coin. In the case of Iran, if, in unconditional negotiations, we offered them something in return for their cooperation, we would set a horrible precedent. It would amount to rewarding misbehavior, and from that point on every rogue government on the face of the planet would realize that they could get anything they wanted by threatening and warmongering and violating human rights. In return for their cooperation they could get any number of concessions from the United States. It is far better to establish preconditions. Reward countries for their cooperation by opening diplomatic channels, allowing for secondary negotiations which can enhance the prosperity of both the United States and the nation in question. Like every analogy, my anecdote about the market in Israel is imperfect. It nevertheless demonstrates the power of tough bargaining, which is precisely what removing preconditions is not. "It is incorrect to say talking is not a virtue to be valued. With talk comes understanding. With understanding comes trust. With trust, cooperation." The above statement is true when talking about interpersonal relationships; However, it has very little application to diplomacy. Ahamadinejad has made his intentions perfectly clear, which is the very reason we have cut diplomatic ties and are having this discussion in the first place. The preconditions we have established arise, not from a lack of understanding, but an overabundance of it. "Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that a country is unwilling to change its ways should a better option appear... Should these things be remedied, Iran would have no reason to threaten Israel." Excuse me, but there is never any reason, or excuse, to threaten to wipe out an entire nation. This is precisely what little Mahmoud has done. It is that kind of mantra that must be discontinued if talks are to proceed, not the threat of military action per se. At least another entire debate could be dedicated to the question of Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine. I will not distract from the current topic by trying to refute your statements on the matter. "The idea that they are self-evident or natural-born enemies for no reason other than their own existences is one that holds no weight." This is completely off-topic, but theirs is a 3000-year-old feud at least. It is difficult to explain that without some kind of naturally occurring hostility. "Conditional talks would grant more strength to that state's actions because you are not allowing the country any option to pursue but submitting." How would removing a foreign government's options strengthen their actions? You may simply have to be more specific with your wording to get your point across. Removing a state's options and leaving only the options we with them to pursue would, I would think, be ideal. "Tensions can escalate, as they have been with Iran, and a country who is threatened - where its people suffer from economic sanctions or the threat of a possible war - grant the utmost legitimacy to the leader. Once again, some clarity is missing here. Are you saying that tensions grant the "utmost legitimacy" to the leader of another country? In a situation in which a country's leaders, such as Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah, are far more radical than the population itself, things like economic sanctions and the prospect of war severely undermine the legitimacy of the government. When the people realize that their government is to blame for the hardships, support for the government drops, and further motivates them to replace their government. This, of course, would depend on the preconditions. If, for example, a precondition to talks was that Iran had to give all of its oil to the United States for free, the sanctions and hostility, coupled with this outrageous demand, would indeed strengthen a government in much the same way that support for president Bush remained high shortly after 9/11, as you pointed out. However, if our preconditions are reasonable, the opposite would be the case. In the specific case of Ahmadinejad, I don't see a whole lot of difference between him and Hitler. Their propaganda, rhetoric and threats have run remarkably parallel. If you've seen the documentary "Obsession" you know what I'm talking about. I would like to say that I'm not entirely sure that cutting diplomatic ties is always justified, and that, by extension, establishing preconditions for negotiations is always constructive. I keep going back to Taiwan, which presents no real threat, but with whom we have no relations because of diplomatic pressure from China. This does not mean that preconditions aren't productive when appropriate, as is the case with Iran.