(Last week Iran was testing missiles, and now everyone's making nice. What's changed?) Last week was a week of mixed messages on both sides. (Does this move represent a clear policy shift by the Bush administration?) It's certainly a retreat from earlier positions. Bush has said negotiations without pre-conditions is a form of appeasement and now this top diplomat, Mr. Burns, will be attending negotiations without Iran having met any of the pre-conditions. (Do you think the State Department's limitations on Mr. Burns's ability to negotiate is a wise move?) I'm not sure it's wise or realistic. So if the purpose is to dispatch a diplomat who can't do anything, I'm not sure why Burns will go there. (Skeptics of this decision say this is the U.S. showing weakness.) Well these are some of the problems the Bush administration has when it paints itself in a corner with such militant rhetoric. (So by following this diplomatic approach, does this take off the possibility of military intervention towards Iran?) I never thought that was a realistic approach in the first place because of lack domestically and internationally and even within the Bush administration.