At the end of the day, this is a matter of style rather than substance.

Yes, but:

Style matters.

The epitome of "rockless" diplomacy is Jimmy Carter.

And how much of that talking progress was backed by a Presdient who was quite willing to take action?

The two aren't mutully exclusive. Remember, Scowcroft is a West Point grad and retired 3-star general.

I am entirely certain — and both ancient and modern history of Iran and the region unequivocally teach — that nothing will be settled without the threat or use of arms.

Well, there's the opening to China, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the first Gulf War.

And how much of that talking progress was backed by a Presdient who was quite willing to take action? Soviet Union, Check. Iraq, Check.

Ah. Then, for purposes of diplomacy, I presume you'd agree that an Undersecretary of State with instructions would be adequate as a representative from our side? That's pretty much what's going on now.

For diplomacy, sure, there isn't a real need for a meeting of the Presidents until they want the photo-op and press coverage, which I assume will only be after the deal is made.

For the purposes of diplomacy, the President of Iran is close enough to being both head of government and head of state. I certainly don't see Khamenei overturning any foreign policy agreements made by Ahmadinejad.

Ah. Then, for purposes of diplomacy, I presume you'd agree that an Undersecretary of State with instructions would be adequate as a representative from our side? That's pretty much what's going on now.

Yes, this is the kind of thing people used to tell themselves about Bush, too.

True. But, as Dave points out, Bush and his team are negotiating with the Iranians and others.

We're making real progress, for example, in the Six-Party Talks. And I still maintain that we're looking for a diplomatic solution in Iran.

Yes, this is the kind of thing people used to tell themselves about Bush, too.

How many years has brent Scrowcroft been 'talking'? How many years was he in charge of such matters? How much progress was made?

Well, there's the opening to China, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the first Gulf War.

OTOH, we have Ronald Reagan's talking: "We begin bombing in 5 minutes", which seemed far more successful.

Hmmm.

It's a fair question, however, whether the president of the United States should have direct meetings with the president of Iran, who is neither head of government nor head or state.

For the purposes of diplomacy, the President of Iran is close enough to being both head of government and head of state. I certainly don't see Khamenei overturning any foreign policy agreements made by Ahmadinejad.

Unfortunately, there are too many Americans, apparently including some in the Bush Administration, who don't understand that one of the purposes of ongoing diplomacy is to establish a foundation for future agreements. The process is important.