It's interesting to me that Washington and London are more concerned about Iran than Iran's neighbors are. Just as Washington is more concerned about North Korea than the South Koreans are. There seems to be a culture of overreaction. I don't think there is any doubt that Ahmadinejad is unsophisticated and clumsy, to say the least.
Now, I'm not an advocate for Iran, but any negotiation requires honestly putting yourself in the shoes of the people across the table to better understand your own position and options - how they will be received, what are their fears and goals, what are the misconceptions of your position and even misconceptions of their position.
So let's step back from the brink of overreaction for a minute and try to understand why Iran seems intent on building a nuclear arsenal and why it is boldly defying intervention. And let's talk about the history of Iran, the US and the UK, so we can understand how leaders like Ahmadinejad come to power and why they find support from their people by thumbing their noses at the west.
Specifically, how the UK history of colonizing the Iranian oil, the CIA-led coup against the secular government, the US and UK deposing of Reza Shah I and the US encouragement of war against Iraq (costing a million Iranian lives) and subsequent double-cross by arming Iraq has built a culture of frustration at the west.
Those facts and history provide the backdrop for understanding their position. It's also important to understand that the inconsistency of foreign policy regarding nuclear nonproliferation has fueled Ahmadinejad's strength. Iran does not harbor Al Qaeda or Taliban-trained suicide bombers, like Pakistan has done and continues to do, yet no one is advocating military intervention.
Pakistan, India, Israel and China are not signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet they surround Iran. India and Pakistan have even received nuclear cooperation agreements with the US in spite of their refusal to sign the treaty.
I would say that inconsistency of foreign policy and continued outside influence in the affairs of Iran would be key parts of their position.
