RTFA: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/26/world/ma…

President Barack Obama’s administration will engage in “direct diplomacy” with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

“The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase,” she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.

Her comments, reflecting Obama’s signals for improved relations with America’s foes after eight years under President George W. Bush, came shortly after meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on her first day in her new job.

This is certainly interesting… There’s no doubt that Iran is a major player in the Middle East – the biggest, if you don’t count Russia. Does anyone know of some thinktank policy papers that might shed some light on what’s happening here? Given that this action is contingent on nuclear regulation, is this some good cop/bad cop, when contrasted with Bush? …or is this action intended to engulf the region in conflict, in the somewhat likely situation that Iran does not relent in its nuclear ambitions?