This whole acting rationally thing is really confuses me.

" By demonstrating that Iran has acted as a rational player, the report gives advocates of negotiations without preconditions a stronger hand."

Since when and in whose mind would such things as the following fall in the category of rational thinking:

1: Taking Hostages at Embassy (Sure if you want to take a wholistic view that their guiding light in this action was to accomplish what was better in the long turn; you would have to however illustrate that it was, and good luck with that)

2: Having a nuclear weapons program in the first place if you haven't even gotten to the place where you could use it without nefarious actions to obtain the materials /which in turn would point to nefarious intent

3: Using all governmental assets to keep the entire populous under restrictions which discourage any uprising or even simple disagreement with government.

4: The need for review of historic happenings to which there is no doubt and mainly because right now so many who actually lived it are still alive to tell about it. ( Wouldn't it have been more rational to wait until the witnesses are gone before trying to rewrite history?)

5: Anything that comes out of the mouth of the current leadership such as-
We dont have any vs We eliminate any ( If i'll blow smoke in your face on TV about something so notably identifiable as the existence of those with alternative lifestyles, are you really sure you want to take my word on something like nuclear power?)

Just a few things which make it really hard for me to buy the rationality argument.

That being said there is still nothing wrong with negotiating as long as we remember:

The quote from JFK that rings true

" Let us never fear to negotiate , but let us never negotiate from fear "