One of the odder aspects of this administration’s foreign policy is the way that such a fetish is made of not talking to representatives of various unfriendly, unpleasant regimes. Talks, discussions, debates, call them what you will, need imply, of course, neither approval, nor respect, nor even that there is anything to talk about. Handled properly, they are merely recognition that the other side exists. In that sense, therefore, they need be of little more significance than, say, a public admission that the earth is not flat. If something good comes out of them, or the theater that they represent, fine. If not, so what?

Bearing that in mind, I hope that the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. will not get into trouble for what seems like an excellent initiative:

America’s sometimes-freewheeling ambassador to the United Nations ran afoul of his superiors by taking part in unauthorized debate with two high-ranking Iranian officials during a conference of world leaders last week in the luxury Alpine resort of Davos, Switzerland.
Zalmay Khalilzad made an unscheduled appearance Saturday at a World Economic Forum discussion of Iran’s controversial nuclear program, whose participants included Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Mojtaba Samare Hashemi, a top advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Khalilzad did not veer from the U.S. position, but broke rules that permit Bush administration officials to discuss issues with Iranians only under limited circumstances and with advance approval. “Ambassador Khalilzad’s appearance with the Iranian foreign minister and presidential advisor was not authorized,” said a State Department spokesman, who declined to be identified while discussing a personnel issue. He said officials would speak to Khalilzad about the infraction.”

It could be, of course, that this initiative was, in fact, approved but unofficial in a Mission: Impossible sort of way, in which case circulating the idea that Ambassador Khalizad has committed some sort of infraction is itself a splendidly dishonest charade. If so, one can only applaud the cynicism, double-dealing and absence of moralistic fervor. Here’s hoping.