Cutting Diplomatic Ties Resolves Nothing: Unconditional diplomacy is best.

Thank you for accepting, you've made some worthy opening points. Yes, Iran is the most practical example to commonly use, but use it remembering that we are discussing the broader idea to theoretically apply to everyone. And yes, there is a difference between official talks and unofficial talks, which we have with Iran through Iraq about Iran's role in Iraq. So thus, diplomacy should mean official talks and not unofficial ones. I agree with your first point, that diplomacy is worthless without something to bargain with, just like talking for the sake of noise is worthless. But alas, the point of diplomacy is always to reach an end through the means of dialogue, and it is assumed that there is some mutually beneficial outcome which can be achieved without the costs of military force or economic sanctions. Which leads me to my second point, that there is always a mutually beneficial outcome which can be achieved through unconditional diplomacy - so I'd like to bring back your story about Israeli market bargaining for reexamining. The analogousness of 'preconditions' to 'walking away from the bargain' is flawed, because in a marketplace there is competition to get what one wants, while in one on one/state on state relations, there is not. Persian rugs only come from one place so to speak. Your buyer friend walking away signifies that he'll get what he wants from someone else, but in state to state relationships, you can only get what you want from a state from that state itself. Knowing this, the 'seller' so to speak, has no reason lower his price and bend over backwards for you, because he has the same amount of leverage that you have. But like the buyer and seller, their interactions have the potential to be mutually beneficial. Remember that an enemy is only someone who is perceived to harm or diminish you in some way, and in two enemies this trait is shared by both sides. (Example: USA threatens Iran and Iran threatens USA.) Diplomacy presents the opportunity for both sides to agree to end this threat simultaneously, like was the case in the Cuban Missile Crisis (in which, to remind you, the Russians removed the Cuban missiles, and America removed the Turkish missiles simultaneously). Diplomacy is both the easiest and most affordable way to get what you want. Wars are expensive, as the Iraq War shows by costing over 500 billion dollars, and wars as not a last resort have enormous costs in international standing. Also, unconditional diplomacy has not been proven to work yet. We've not had ties with Cuba for over 40 years and they still haven't made any of the changes we'd like, the same way Iran continues to defy us. It is incorrect to say talking is not a virtue to be valued. With talk comes understanding. With understanding comes trust. With trust, cooperation. And your evaluation of Iran proves to me the need for a greater understanding. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the foreign policy maker of Iran, instead Ayatollah (Supreme Leader) Khameinei is. And according to Khameinei, Iran's foreign policy is one of "nonaggression towards all United Nations members" - a statement he made two days after Ahmadinejad's controversial 'wipe Israel off the map' comment. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that a country is unwilling to change its ways should a better option appear. The nature of Iran's quarrel with Israel is Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the fighting with Shi'ite Muslims (Hezbollah), which Iran has a history of forming policy around to protect. Also the oppression of Muslims in Palestine is a cause of Iran's concern. Should these things be remedied, Iran would have no reason to threaten Israel. 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. Furthermore, I would argue that conditional talks actually grant more legitimacy to states than you think. Conditional talks would grant more strength to that state's actions because you are not allowing the country any option to pursue but submitting. 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. Just look at the legitimacy we gave to Bush for the Iraq war when there was no threat except its very perception. So indeed, conditional talks stand to further push the people of Iran away as well as the government. Yes, it would be naive to think diplomacy will always work. Perhaps if you were trying to talk to the Mongols or Hitler, you would fail miserably to find a mutually beneficial outcome. But with countries like Iran and North Korea, there is proof that you can. But you would never know unless you tried, and if you insist on holding conditional talks, you've never tried.