ARTICLE: “U.S. disregards Iranian letter: First overture since ’80 doesn’t address nukes,” by Barbara Slavin, USA Today, 9 May 2006, p. 1A.

ARTICLE: “Iranian Letter: Using Religion To Lecture Bush,” by Michael Slackman, New York Times, 10 May 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: “Letter to Bush reflects Iranian leader’s mind-set,” by Barbara Slavin, USA Today, 10 May 2006, p. 9A.

ARTICLE: “U.S. and Europe Plan New Offer To Entice Iran Away From Arms,” by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 10 May 2006, p. A10.

ARTICLE: “UK, Berlin and Paris offer Iran new deal,” by Mark Turner, Daniel Dombey and Frances Williams, Financial Times, 10 May 2006, p. 2.

ARTICLE: “Tehran looks to Muslim world for new friends,” by Shawn Donnan and Gareth Smyth, Financial Times, 10 May 2006, p. 2.

COLUMN: “Ahmadi-Nejad makes another move in an Iranian game of chess,” by Quentin Peel, Financial Times, 10 May 2006, p. 2.

ARTICLE: “Bush Says Iran Leader’s Letter Fails to Address Nuclear Issue: A communication is dismissed as not a serious diplomatic overture,” by Christine Hauser, New York Times, 11 May 2006, p. A7.

ARTICLE: “Indonesia Offers to Mediate Talks With Iran,” by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, 11 May 2006, p. A24.

Some response would have been nice. I mean, I know Don Rumsfeld “doesn’t do diplomacy,” but why should that apparently be the case with Condi Rice as well?

I mean, the first direct message in 26 years and no one can pick up the phone?

You have to wonder who’s kicking whose ass in diplomatic circles right now. Ahmadinejad is working global opinion, while the Bush White House can’t even line up the Europeans.

A couple of months ago Iran agrees to direct talks on Iraq. Where has that gone since?

Three years ago, according to a former Iranian ambassador to France who participated in the effort, Iran signaled a willingness to pursue an entire agenda of talks, to include nukes, terror, the Arab-Israeli conflict. But according to Flynt Leverett, a former NSCer and Iranian expert, the Bush White House blew that entreaty off just as easily as it dismissed this one.

Leverett, writing in the NYT a while back, also said the Iranians approached the U.S. soon after 9/11 about possibly helping with the takedown of the Taliban. The Bush White House blew them off then as well.

So let’s see: help on Afghanistan, help on Iraq, help on Israel, help on terror, and help on nukes. If we had achieved anything in any of those realms, think we’d be in a better position today in the Middle East? Two-thousand-plus dead American soldiers makes that a question worth asking.

Ah yes, but we are told by White House strategists that our policy to date on Iran has been “all carrots and no sticks.” We take down regimes on their east and west, put them on the “axis of evil” list, talk openly of regime change, invasion, and possible use of nukes (and yes, I consider it “openly” when Seymour Hersh finds out) against them, and our policy is truthfully described as “all carrots, no sticks”?

Ahmadinejad is playing the Bush Administration like a guitar.

We don’t need psychiatrists decoding his head. I’d like a nice reading on Dick Cheney’s.

We are losing this war of words and perceptions. The Bush post-presidency, now closing in on its first anniversary (Katrina was its start), is becoming a serious strategic liability.

Bush says he won’t answer the letter because it’s not a serious offer of diplomacy. Well, Indonesia’s new president has made such an offer. Ahmadinejad is in Jakarta working out a refining deal (my motto on today’s oil market: amateurs talk exploration, professionals talk refining), so Yudhoyono (former general who did a nice job on the Aceh recovery and rebuild) obviously has a stake. But duh! Who do you want working the issue? People with serious stakes? Like the Indians, Chinese, Indonesians? Or people who’ve lost all points of leverage thanks to decades of non-engagement (otherwise known as us)?