Well, so far as I can see, matters concerning Khatami’s visit are exactly the wrong way round. Quite why the Episcopalian church is inviting that revolting individual to a meeting of the type being advertised at a time when his regime is persecuting Christians (and other minority religions) is inexplicable other than as a unusually twisted gesture that combines self-abasement and moral arrogance in a way all too typical of the clergy’s more idiotic representatives. On the other hand, of course the Administration should talk to Khatami while he is here. That it will not is a display of pique, not resolve.

As I said, Khatami is a revolting individual, but what has that got to do with it? The exercise of diplomacy should be about the exercise of national self-interest, nothing more, nothing less. If you want moralizing, go to a church. The refusal to meet Khatami is an admission of weakness, not a declaration of strength, and, as such, is a mistake. If the concern is that the Iranians will spin any meeting (which will almost certainly go nowhere) more effectively than the Americans, that should be a wake-up call that the US is making a mess of projecting its message – and isn’t prepared to raise its game.

As for the tired, desperate and thoroughly disingenuous complaint that talking to our adversaries is the act of a Chamberlain, lets look at some previous Nevilles drawn from GOP ranks. One was called Dwight Eisenhower. Prior to the moment that the Gary Powers incident messed it all up, Ike was going to talk to Nikita (“we will bury you”) Khruschev. Or if we prefer, we can look at another Chamberlain. He was called Richard Nixon, the man who went to see Chairman (tens of millions murdered) Mao, and spent quality time with Leonid (Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, you name it) Brezhnev, as, in the case of the latter tyrant, did President Ford. And then we have remember Ronald Reagan, another unconvincing striped pants and umbrella man. Back in April 1982, he indicated that he’d be glad to meet old Brezhnev if he came to the UN that summer. ‘Unfortunately’ Brezhnev was busy dying at the time, so the meeting never took place.

What Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all understood was that the exercise of (sometimes meaningless) diplomacy was an important asset in the US arsenal, and if that meant they would have to sit down with monsters, so be it. They were confident that they would prevail. Is that no longer the case?