Easy Nathan,
All I can do is refer to history. We’ve tried this in multiple countries with everything from weapons to food to fuel. . . and every time it backfires.
Diplomacy is completely different from blackmail. They cannot exist together. Diplomacy relies on trade and trust, and both parties grow from it. Blackmail relies on politics and lack of trust. . .give me what I want and I’ll do what you want. Jimmy Carter failed to recognize the difference too, as did many others.
These countries are exercising leverage through threat. They use the relaxation in tensions to create new bargaining chips and expand the threat. To placate them is a dangerous tactic, and a lesson we’ve learned again and again.
Threat becomes currency when there’s no fear of retribution.
I have two small children. I know how this works.
Although I disagree with your assessment, I thank you for your well thought explanation of your position. Seriously.
I guess what I still don't get, even granting your premise, how it is a negative for us to make individual deals that improve the situation from our perspective. Obviously we shouldn't do whatever they ask willy-nilly, but in a relatively simple "you give us something we don't want you to have and we give you something you want to have that's less threatening to us" or a "you give us nuclear fuel and we give you food" is really an issue.
I think a lot of our recent issues with North Korea (and Iran to a lesser degree) boiled down to obstinately refusing to even talk.
Even if all you're doing is buying time, I don't see where it puts us at any disadvantage, aside perhaps from a prison created in our own minds. It takes no future options off the table, yet modestly improves the situation from our perspective.
Either way, none of us know all the facts, so having stated our positions, I don't know how much good will come of continued discussion on the subject, barring new evidence.