It would certainly not work to motivate the gov't to start opening up diplomatic channels. Such a message would be more of a dagger to Ahmadinejad & Co., as this letter is clearly an attempt to trump the politicos in favor of people (read: the Green Party). Not sure if we really want to be picking sides just yet - publically, anyway - because, like you say ADR, an open message is most likely not going to suddenly stir the masses into action.

that is exactly right BCELLIS

Ok HASS,
so what policies should've been repealed to show that we're genuinely interested in engaging Iran? You've got to point to some hard evidence and real policies, lest you want to take the same BS rhetorical approach that Khameini does.
And why do these gestures need to be one sided? I don't hear you saying anything about Iran showing they're genuinely interested. Diplomacy is a two way street. Nameless finger pointing is exactly what the Iranians have been doing the entire time to stall long enough with rhetoric until they've built a nuclear weapon. The only difference is you seem to think they're serious and genuine, when they KNOW it's simply a strategy (they think they'll either jerk us around long enough til they have nuclear capabilities, which will in all likelihood happen, or they'll force our hand into action and make us look like the aggressors, though they'd prefer the first scenario).
Why haven't they given any gestures? Maybe halting the uranium enrichment in Qom and god knows where else? Maybe ceasing their support for Hezbollah and Hamas? Or maybe, if they're really feeling generous, they could stop killing our young soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan? Any takers? I don't think so...

Sorry to interrupt your rant but FYI Iran DID halt enrichment -- for TWO AND A HALF YEARS -- as a good faith gesture, and also helped the US in the invasion of Afghanistan, all of which was rewarded by the US labelling Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil". Here's some suggestions for actions: first, stop claiming to have "reached out to iran" when you really haven't. Second, why not remove the sanctions on the sale of civilian aircraft parts to Iran -- something which has not only placed the lives of thousands of at risk needlessly (you know, the same Iranian people that Obama pretends to support) but is also a violation of international law and the Chicago Convention. Then, how about saying that use of force is NOT on the table -- because you see, threatening to attack other countries too is a violation of international law, and constitutes a WAR CRIME and yet our government daily proclaims use of force to be an "option" (imagine if Ahmadinejad went around sayind that bombing the US was an option). So, howz that for a start? OR maybe acknowledge Iran's offer to open its enrichment program to US participation -- something that the IAEA and US experts have endorsed.

I agree with some of your comments in my post below, Hass, but I disagree with a few points you've made as well. First, Iran did not assist the U.S. in the invasion of Afghanistan. At least not in any way that was in conjunction with our Armed Forces. Our diplomatic ties have been severely reduced since 1979. That said, our interest, and perhaps a few of our goals, in Afghanistan are mutually recognized.
Second, I'll bite that we have not given Iran more than favorable arrangements for negotiations, but there haven't exactly been selflessly motivated attempts by Iran, either. The current administration, though I may disagree with them in many areas that are better left for a separate conversation, has worked to reach out to Iran. Are we conceding to their every desire? No. Should we? No. Our objectives and Iran's objectives differ greatly. The "double-game" debate that Gates and Ahmadinejad had in Istanbul two weeks ago is an example of different paradigms. That said, the U.S. has attempted to increase ties with Iran in the past decade, especially in trying to bring Iran to the table on Afghanistan. Keep in mind, however, that right when Hillary Clinton was proposing a conference that included Tehran on Afghanistan, the Ayatollah was holding his own conference rallying support for Hamas and Hezzbollah against Israel.
Why should the U.S. concede on nuclear talks when Iran won't budge on their attempts to become the neighborhood powerhouse intent on destroying Israel, who is a declared U.S. ally? Is the recent development of uranium to 20% a sign of good faith by Iran? Or is their nuclear chief justified in threatening the U.S. not to "mess" with Iran in their attempts to enrich, evoking the ghost of the Persian Empire and claiming they have every right to enrich their uranium as much as they want? What about him calling IAEA chief Yukiya Amano "biased" after Amano said that Iran hasn't been compliant with IAEA inquires? The IAEA has not even confirmed Iran's intent of nuclear material as being acquired for peaceful means. Consider those points. If you can prove me wrong on Iran assisting the U.S. military in the invasion, I'd like to hear it. I'm just not sure where you're making that assumption.

Your problem is you don't bother actually checking those reports. There was in fact no evidence of election fraud in iran, and poll after poll conducted by both Iranian and American organizations found that Ahmadinejad was the favored choice. For more FACTS check out this: http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/06/iran-elections-claims-and-counterclaims-analyzed.html

FYI the "opposition" candidate Mousavi was specifically vetted and pre-cleared by the regime to run for office, and so his supposed election would not have presented any threat to require the same regime to resort to electoral fraud to keep him out of office. he is in fact more of a "regime-insider" than Ahmadinejad, and actually criticized Ahmadinejad for being too soft on the nuclear issue.

I am inclined to agree with Hass on a few points. Quite simply, there is no substantial, hard evidence of Ahmadinejad and the ruling elite to have "rigged" the election this past June. Is there reasonable suspicion? Absolutely. I am not overly surprised that Ahmadinejad won the election, nor would I have been surprised if a run-off occurred and he won that, too. I am surprised, however, by the manner in which he won. The overwhelming majority in districts that he won are quite suspicious. In some areas, his incredible margin of victory would have been similar to McCain winning Chicago this past November. Again, no hard conclusive evidence, but certainly enough for suspicious to be justified and questions to be asked. See this link for more info: http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

As for the "Axis of Evil" point, I'm not entirely convinced that the U.S. was justified in labeling Iran in this manner and may have led to further radicalization. Such public claims have seen their result in this past election, in fact, when the moderates were marginalized as those in power sought to maintain their power. Is the U.S. still bitter about 1979? Perhaps. Is Iranian hegemony in the region dangerous to U.S. priorities (or, at least to those who view Israel as a priority)? Yes. The acquisition of nuclear weapons certainly makes this threat even more potent. The inclusion of Iran in the "Axis of Evil" hardly seemed justified, merited, well thought-out, or wise. There were more simple ways of obtaining desirable results in Iran. Actions by the U.S. in the past few years have largely solidified the ruling in their bunkers and tightened their fists on power, making moderates ineffective, change more difficult, and outcries of popular movements, such as the Green Party, even more suppressed.