I can’t help beating a dead horse and briefly entering into the discussion of a possible expanded U.S. Interests Section in Iran. Since the news leaked last week, people have both lambasted the Bush Administration for acceding to State Department demands and praised it as an intelligent, far-sighted move that could ease tensions in this time of a near-crisis in U.S.-Iran relations.

But why all the attention?

In the past four or five centuries, the general diplomatic consensus among states was, in the words of Sun Tzu, “to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” It was rarely considered an issue to pursue diplomacy, even during war. Hell, the U.S. did it with representatives of Ho Chi Minh even during the worst parts of the Vietnam War. Sure, nations have often withdrawn their ambassadors from others or expelled foreign ambassadors during times of serious distrust, but back-level channels of communication have always been open, and will continue to be, whether there is an Embassy, an Interests Section, or neither.

To me, all this talk about this being a revolutionary step-forward, or a hugely-naive step backward, seems nothing more than an exercise in hyperbole. As many of us are aware, Iran already has an Interests Section, staffed by Iranian nationals, at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. The U.S. already has an Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, albeit lacking an American staff.

America’s personnel presence in Tehran may get slightly beefed up, more Iranians may be granted U.S. visas, and a few more world-changing (slight sarcasm) cultural exchanges between the two countries may go through. But America’s rhetoric toward the Iranian regime and the impasse over the nuclear issue probably won’t change, and neither will Tehran’s status as front page material in headlines around the world.

-Kevin