Once the dialogue between Tehran and Washington was relatively straightforward - Iran called the United States the Great Satan, George Bush said the Islamic Republic was part of an axis of evil. Now it has moved into the language of threatening ambiguities.
A lot of it has do with consequences. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, has warned Iran could face "painful consequences" if it fails to address (largely) western concerns over its nuclear activities. Dick Cheney, the US vice president, has since spoken of "meaningful consequences".
"Consequences" are a serious matter.
The UN security council's pre-war resolution on Iraq indeed threatened "serious consequences" against Saddam Hussein if he failed to fulfil his international obligations.
The text never specified what those would be, though the US delegation probably had an idea of where it was going. The question now is if such consequences work on a sliding scale (painful through meaningful to serious, in chronological terms) or if they all mean the same thing.
While there is something almost pop psychological about reading so much meaning into what "meaningful" is, Guardian columnist Simon Tisdall writes that "official Washington's quickening drumbeat of hostility is beginning to recall political offensives" against Muammar Gadafy, Manuel Noriega and Saddam.
For its part, Iran has reminded the US it is "susceptible to harm and pain" if its efforts succeed in getting the security council to discuss Iran's nuclear activities. The US, naturally, is pressing for a statement to warn Iran it could "face consequences".
