Ahmadi-nejad's reinstallation

There is a discussion lately about how nations should have been present at this event. The Times has a very harsh complaint about the presence of a senior English diplomat. It is the same kind of vitriol as Birgitta Ohlsson and Jan Björklund delivers in the direction of the Islamic Republic.

I'm not sure it is wise to be that harsh. There is still a possibility that magic of the kind just seen in North Korea could materialize in Iran. They did release an American journalist lately. It must have been truly shocking for Khamenei and Ahmadi-nejad to go through the problems they had. They know that change is in the air and Mr. Change himself in Washington might get a bargain with them.

Unfortunately, Obama is losing prestige in Afghanistan lately as the bloodiest month so far in the eight year war just ended with 73 soldiers dead. The toll in civilians is up 50%. Ahmadi-nejad suggested that they should spend the money spent on war on the country instead. These cirumstances speak against a break-through for diplomacy. It is easily forgotten that Afghanistan is a neighboring country to Iran.

Mikael Wendt says that it is important to speak one's mind which I agree is important but I think Carl Bildt is right in that it is important with a conventionally established diplomatic relation for this to occur. I you would humiliate them they wouldn't listen. Germany sent junior diplomats. I believe Great Britain and Sweden did better with their ambassadors at the same time as they did not wish them well, which is honest, since the situation they face is non-optimal.