The Washington Post editors observe the Iranians’ nabbing of Roxana Saberi and incarceration of ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, the brazen advancement of their nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad’s performance at Durban II. They conclude:

What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi’s defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip — to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won’t meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad’s radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June — and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one.

That is entirely sound advice, but is the president moved by the notion that it is bad to humiliate his administration and country? The answer isn’t at all clear. He was the one who went on TV to apologize for imagined slights inflicted by the U.S. on the Muslim world. It is his administration that gave up the precondition of abiding by the UN resolution (barring Iran from progressing with its nuclear program) before talks commence.

In other words, Obama has invited this by humbling himself before the mullahs. That is the game: he ingratiates and they slap back. He goes the next step to further ingratiate himself even more and they insult more loudly. And soon they have established that they are calling the shots. And they make clear that they have cowed him into accepting any behavior so as not to disrupt hope for “progress.” Because the president is persistent, you see, he won’t give up.

This, of course, makes it infinitely harder, if not impossible, to convince the Iranians later on that we do have limits (we do, right?) and that they will be ill-served by continuing to test American resolve. Why shouldn’t they keep it up, after all? Look what’s it’s getting them.