The complaint we have been hearing for oh-so-long, from the lowliest bloggers of the “reality-based community” all the way up to Barack Obama, is that the missing ingredient to a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear standoff has been the absence of the United States at the negotiating table. Two weeks ago there was just such an American presence, in the form of William Burns, the third-highest ranking diplomat at the State Department.

And thanks to Le Monde, we now have a transcript of the words Burns spoke directly to Saeed Jalili, Iran’s nuclear “negotiator” (my translation):

I am happy to transmit a simple message. The United States is serious in its support of its offering of cooperation and a way forward. We are serious in the search for a diplomatic solution. The relations between our two countries have been based on profound mistrust for 30 years. I hope that my presence today is a step in a good direction and that you seize this opportunity.

We also now have a copy of Iran’s schizophrenic reply to the P5+1(+Burns), which reads as if its drafting was an assignment in a post-structuralist creative writing class at Tehran University:

Now the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to provide a ‘clear response’ to your proposal at the earliest opportunity while simultaneously expecting to receive your ‘clear response’ to our questions and ambiguities as well.

Undoubtedly such mutual clarification can pave the way for a speedy and transparent negotiating process with a bright prospect and provide grounds for cooperation.

The second phase in negotiations can commence as early as possible if there is such willingness on your side.

This bizarre and completely worthless document is exactly in keeping with Iran’s previous offerings. The only difference this time was the presence of a high-ranking U.S. official at the negotiations. I think it can now be uncontroversially said that precisely the development that liberals have been clamoring for and insisting on has had a sum total effect of — zero.

So, did all those members of the “reality-based community” really believe that the appearance of a U.S. envoy would change Iranian behavior? I doubt it. Rather, I suspect that such assurances were made by people who are so deeply invested in the universal applicability of diplomacy that they are incapable of identifying the moment when diplomacy shifts from being part of the solution to part of the problem. The conclusion that the reality-based community will draw from the fruitlessness of Burns’ presence is not that the United States has nothing to offer Iran in exchange for the cessation of its nuclear program. It will simply be said that the U.S. got involved too late, or not passionately enough, or didn’t employ the right words, or that Bush has already forfeited any international credibility. Anything to keep the narrative going.