Words better than fists?

Suzanne Nossel [1] lays out the case for unconditional agreement to engage in talks with any country that is willing: 

I understand the notion that by engaging directly in talks with countries that make threats and flout international norms, the US risks dignifying and publicizing these nations' illegitimate positions and causes. I also recognize that amid bitter and longstanding policy conflicts, the chances that direct talks between diplomats with vastly different objectives and value-systems will help bridge differences may be slim indeed. I don't think that pushing for direct talks with either North Korea or Iran comes close to proffering a "solution" to either crisis. It merely advocates a change in the process by which the conflicts are currently dealt with.

With that said, I wonder whether the US might not be better off with a blanket policy of unconditional willingness to talk directly to North Korea, Iran, and any nation that asks to meet with us face-to-face. We would not be offering to change our positions, concede any of our arguments, or give credence to any of theirs, but rather simply to meet with no strings attached and no promises implied.

A lot of you may recall this popping up during one of the Kerry/Bush smackdowns debates where Bush tried to pretend he had some rationale behind refusing to talk with North Korea. Nowadays, the only lesson we’ve given the world is that if you want to avoid being the next Iraq, you should beef up your nuke-ular arsenal as soon as you can.

This push comes directly on the heels of a report [2] that Iran offered to negotiate back in 2003 [2] suggesting that everything – full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups – was on the table: 

The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.

After being rebuffed [3], Iran felt they had little choice but to begin an aggressive push towards military independence. Meanwhile, the Bush administration chose the only member of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ that wasn’t currently posing a threat and invaded. So the score now stands at Axis of Evil – 2, Bush 1 (with an asterisk)

This is an endemic problem with Team Chimpy. They are more than comfortable with their guns and bombs, but have no capacity for rational thought and prudent dialogue. While hawks in the administration may have somehow deluded themselves into seeing this as a negotiation technique, such strong-armed tactics are merely hubris disguised as statesmanship, and are making the world a more dangerous place [4] to live.

[5]