You make some good points, very good ones and I’m glad that you’re in agreement with me about the negative impact of “bellicose rhetoric”.

You write, “Yes, Iran must be taken seriously, and even respected to a certain extent, but the US (and Europe and China) must recognize that it is not equality that the Iranians want, it is the top spot”.

Iran occupies the top spot now (at least in the region). The American invasion of Iraq handed that country to the Iranians insofar as Iran is closely allied with Iraq’s Shiite majority…and is friendly with the Iraqi Kurds.

Just to let you know where I’m coming from philosophically- I consider myself a pragmatist in the manner of Brent Scowcroft. Certainly I don’t pretend to have the General’s political acumen but I do hope I have his political sensibilities.

The piece you are quoting, “Iran is now a leading player along with the United States, China and Europe,” and that in response the West must “work harder at trying to understand what Iran is all about, to refrain from bellicose rhetoric, and to listen to, and perhaps even heed, what the Iranian leadership has to say.” is one of a trio of pieces on the subject.

The Opening of a dialogue through back diplomatic channels, as Nixon/Kissinger did with China, could be the first step on a road to peace.

We can’t afford any longer to miss an opportunity.

As for your reference to a Pakistan-Iran “competition”…I’m afraid that Pakistan’s intelligence service is in league with elements of al Qaeda, which may be why bin Laden has been able to evade detection for so long.

Iran has no interest in assisting al Qaeda, any more than Saddam did. It’s just not in the interest of the leadership.

Finally, we mustn’t confuse Ahmadinejad with the real policy-makers in Teheran. He’s useful to them as a popular distraction but remember, he’s a figurehead, not the real power.
Cheers