Dan Huck

The Security Council had told Iran it had to stop enrichment. That obviously trumped what many in the international community thought was international law, i.e. the wording of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which seemed to give Iran the right to enrichment. Why didn't the Secretary General , Ban K Moon, simply come out and tell Iran that straightforwardly?
One problem I had, and perhaps others had the same problem, was the incoherence of the communications in this process. All the news  stories and all the blogs were constantly full of 'boilerplate' verbiage, and even the sites which seemed more professional, were seriously lacking in solid information.
Secretary Clinton seemed more partisan, condemning, emotional and scolding of Iran, although she did continuously say Iran had to give up it's enrichment activities, but because it was couched in so much emotionalism, that detracted from the reality that for the Security Council to consider any plan for a swap, or anything, first, Iran must stop enrichment.  Similarly, the President didn't make the case about enrichment ceasing. Did he really send the letter to Brazil and Turkey regarding a new swap, for example?
I started this blog with this comment:
If your big brother hands you a cookie, and gives you a big smile, while at the same time he is stepping on your toes, pressing down harder and harder, what is the nature of your response?
It is difficult for the world to comprehend, but especially for Iran to comprehend, I'm sure, how the US  and the UN hope to build relationships in the world community based on mutual respect and understanding when our  behavior towards those nations with whom we are trying to have a 'breakthrough'', if it were seen in an individual, would appropriately be labeled' hypocritical', if not 'psychotic'.
Iran, responding to the three letters from the members of the Vienna Group, after Minister Salehi said "We will explore the questions", added: In reference to the US and its allies' attempts in New York to approve another resolution against Iran, "Vienna Group's response is in contradiction with its measures in New York."
Any ideas on how to explain what would appear like duplicitousness on our part is something more honest and potentially useful?
Is the answer to this question simply that we are trying too hard to say everything just right, and not to say anything in a way people would construe as being told they have no other options (when in fact, they have no other options)?
Years ago, I was a state social worker with the department of welfare, and the department of social services, and we had forms which we sent to people who had applied for a particular benefit, and whether the benefit was approved or denied, a particular sentence appeared at the end of the letter which said: "If you feel you have been unfairly denied this service, you have the right to appeal the ruling under 'federal statute nr. such and such"
This urge we have as a 'do-gooder' society is very confusing to people. 'No' was 'no', no matter how much people thought they were a special case or how much they felt they really needed the benefit, unless there really had been a mistake made in how their application was evaluated.
Is this same type of confusion driving this conflict with Iran?