I'm not an expert on negotiations, but I've been largely unimpressed with the US approach of unconditional terms with Iran. It seems counter intuitive to me that the US should expect any results other than failure with the “unconditional terms” approach.

I'd negotiate with Iran, and bring to the table every issue, even the most complicated or controversial. I'd also put the media microphone in front of the Iranian negotiators every day for as long as I could in the process. My observation on Iran is their government has a very difficult time articulating their message in person without advertising an obvious disconnect with the west that is very difficult to conceal in media spin. The thing about Iran’s message is, their talking points work for either an audience in the Middle East or the West, but almost never does the same hard line message work for both audiences at the same time.

The region in general is less open to the hardliner message than in the past, too many economic interests counter to the hard line old school message Iran touts, so I'd let them talk. Their rhetoric adds little to their position in the region today, how would it be any different at the negotiating table.

The examples are the UN over the last few years (which largely goes uncovered by the media), but an even better example was Columbia University earlier this year. I get the impression that negotiations and plenty of public attention would strengthen the west’s position more than it would hurt it, because while Iran's message is appealing to hard liners, the hard line message is losing its steam regionally among the major players.

If it really is about talking, then let Iran speak. They really aren't very good at talking when they have to improvise, they are only good at it when they can package the message. That is my observation anyway.