The MSM doesn't do nuance at all. They're black and white, just report the facts types. They would print a story with a nice big headline of 'The World Is Flat' because some politician said it...and it isn't their job to fact check people, just to report on what was said (kinda having a flashback to the WoMD claims that were widely reported on as fact leading up to the Iraq War). With that kind of mindset nuance is about as foreign to them as a little green space alien. /rant

Fortunately the diplomats and our political leaders, the only ones who matter in this process, do nuance very well. The MSM will figure out there was a nuance factor to this story eventually.

The news media have been dealing with lack of nuance for the last eight years--cowboy diplomacy doesn't lend itself well to subtlety. They also haven't had to work very hard for a living during that period.

I have hope that the competent journalists will come out of their creative comas and start generating stories with some meat on the bones. Natural Selection will rid us of the hacks that have infiltrated the news community, disguising themselves as reporters.

Meanwhile, we'll have to rely on observers such as you to make sure the truth gets out.

Good analysis. Successful diplomacy takes time and persistent effort, just as with developing any kind of healthy human relationship.

I think all of that can be achieved if we proceed in a step-wise fashion. We lift some sanctions, Iran cuts-off financial support to Hezbollah, or something along those lines. It's a slow walk, we take one step forward, Iran takes one-step forward. After awhile, maybe, we end up close enough to shake hands.

There has been some speculation that The Plan is to be seen to be reaching out to Iran for the benefit of public consumption and to show our allies that we did try and look what happened.

An anonymous official who was with Hillary Clinton at the donor's conference in Sharm el-Sheikh early this month leaked that she told the FM of the UAE that she doubted that Iran would respond positively to Obama. This account includes a similiar interpretation of the Iranian response to Obama's earlier speech:

"Earier this month, responding to Obama’s offer of engagement, Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech that “the Iranian nation is ready for talks, but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect.”

Yet Tehran has not made any public concessions or announcements about its nuclear program, or on other issues that would make it easier for Obama to proceed with his pledge to hold direct talks.

The apparent rebuff by Tehran could make it easier for Obama to develop consensus on additional measures against Iran among European allies and Russia, which long resisted Bush administration’s calls for tougher sanctions."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19541.html

This Haaretz report raises some questions:

"Senior U.S. officials are preparing to present President Barack Obama with a plan for dialogue with Iran on its nuclear program, including increased international sanctions against Tehran alongside dialogue.

Top Israeli and U.S. officials have been holding meetings on Iran.

The unofficial dialogue between Washington and Tehran, bitter enemies since the Islamic Revolution toppled American ally Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979, will begin within two weeks, even before Obama approves the plan.

Senior U.S. diplomats will meet their Iranian counterparts in two meetings about the future of Afghanistan - one in Moscow on March 27 and the other in the Netherlands on March 31.

The senior U.S. official leading the American rapprochement with Iran is Dennis Ross.

Senior Israeli officials and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who was recently in Washington, have informed the U.S. what Israel thinks about dialogue with Iran.

In talks with the American officials, Israel has learned that the U.S. is planning to conduct a "parallel" approach - beginning a dialogue with Iran, while working with Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain to formulate new sanctions against Iran.

The U.S. will coordinate its efforts with Israel and with moderate Arab states as well.

The goal is to combine talks with pressure in order to convince the Iranian leadership to respond to western demands that it curtail its nuclear program."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072808.html

The Plan will proceed independently of Obama's approval?

The Plan involves asking for Iranian help re Afghanistan while concurrently trying to ramp up sanctions and pressure?

Is it designed to fail?

The Iranians have repeatedly made it explicit that the carrot-and-stick approach won't sway them. Obama promised such an approach during the election campaign, but he is a realist and the U.S. absolutely needs a rapprochement with Iran.
I think a lot of people -- especially Dennis Ross -- are trying to inflate Ross's role in this process. And squeezing new sanctions out of Europe and the Russians? Good luck with that.
A lot, of course, depends on which faction wins the presidential election in three months. Hard-liner Ahmadinejad has not yet said whether he will run for the post again; the last thing the U.S. wants is to throw the election his way.
As for internal Iranian politics, one point I neglected to mention is the fact that Khamenei chose to answer Obama on behalf of the country, shutting Ahmadinejad out. Very symbolic.
Here's a rather good second-day analysis (from a European, not a U.S. agency, naturally):
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxlz-o2pTtBtLRTktl169QEIxL1w

I agree relations will change step by step, but the scenarios that new and piotr outline seem narrower than what is called for. Iran is seeking a new relationship with the West, not piecemeal solutions to irritants (though those go hand in hand).
What gives me hope is that Obama understands that. Inviting Iran to the coming talks on Afghanistan is precisely the right kind of gesture to make.
It may be all the Israelis and the right talk about, but the nuclear-weapons issue really is overblown. Khamenei has declared his country does not seek such weapons, and a U.S.-Iranian protocol could make such a pledge transparently verifiable. By, for example, allowing U.S. monitors at all nuclear facilities, and setting limits on the degree of enrichment that can occur.
Iran won't give up the right to enrich, which every other country is free to exercise.

For anyone still following this thread, Juan Cole is a day late to the debate, but he echos my initial take on Khamenei's response to Obama:
http://www.juancole.com/