Iran - Why Talking to Ahmadinejad Is Not A Bad Idea

First, give a quick look at where The President of Iran sits within the hierarchy of Iranian government. I figure that George W. Bush figured that since Ahmadinejad has the title of President and is another shooting his mouth off without thinking, then Ahmadinejad has just as much authority as Bush. Which shows how much George W. and John McCain know about Iran.

A more important player gets featured in David Ignatius' column, At the Tip of Iran's Spear:

Let's try for a moment to put ourselves in the mind of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. For it is the soft-spoken Soleimani, not Iran's bombastic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who plays a decisive role in his nation's confrontation with the United States.
***
Soleimani is confident about Iran's rising power in the region, according to an Arab official who met recently with him. He sees an America that is weakened by the war in Iraq but still potent. He has told visitors that U.S. and Iranian goals in Iraq are similar, despite the rhetoric of confrontation. But he has expressed no interest in direct, high-level talks. The Quds Force commander prefers to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hoping that the next administration will be more favorable to Iran's interests.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom's A Sensible Path on Iran does its bit to puncture Ahmadinejad's importance:

"To look at the issue another way, imagine if China, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a country that has deliberately not engaged in a nuclear arms race with Russia or the United States, threatened to change the American regime if it did not begin a steady destruction of its nuclear arsenal. The threat would have an arguable legal basis, because all treaty signatories promised long ago to reduce their arsenals, eventually to zero. The American reaction, of course, would be explosive public opposition to such a demand. U.S. leaders might even mimic the fantasy rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the use of nuclear weapons."

The best way I know of promoting a bombastic windbag is to keep giving them reasons to run their mouths. If they rant and rave about someone wanting to do them harm, let the other person give them every reason to believe they intend to do that harm. Talking past the blowhard, to the people he is intimidating with his rhetoric, and appearing rational but firm puts the demagogue on the defensive. Any bets that Obama is already thinking about this?