Azadi square humour in the republic of Iran's capital, Teheran, has been growing edgy. "Sure, we want free trade," an American might hear, "You give us 'shah', we give you 'shaamat'"-the Persian word that's now in global use as 'checkmate'.

Meanwhile, the US and Iran are freely trading accusations and threats in varying degrees of subtlety. Nuke rattling, if that's what it is, is not what it used to be. This follows George W. Bush's 44-ovation State of The Union speech that sought, while deftly avoiding slip-ups of the 'crusade' kind, to shape a new policy that calls for remaking the world in its own image. America's security, henceforth, would depend on the worldwide imposition of its own ideal of 'liberty' (to which France once gifted America a huge statue, before it was symbolically dwarfed by Uncle Sam's looming presence).

Ironic. That's the word that strikes any world-watcher who watched Afghanistan get bombed (though not back to the stone age), Palestine get walled (though not yet in the most incendiary part) and Iraq get shocked (though not into awe) by the brute force of electorally ensconced power, post-9/11. Only some of it was on TV, though. Much of the rest was too horrific to be seen.

Sufferers of such horror need to vote in the safety of secrecy. And vote, many of them did-not willing, perhaps, to shirk responsibility for their fate by passing the job along, upwards.

That was pragmatism, plain and simple. Drawing conclusions from the elections about popular approval of the US policy would be distortion of fact to fit American fancy-as in the lead-up to the Iraq misadventure. The irony is the impunity with which the same wrenches appear to be at work against that tract of dissent between Afghanistan and Iraq: Iran. "As you stand for your own liberty," postures Bush, "America stands with you."

'America stands...'? The US makes no mention of the extent to which its policy actually represents the collective will of the people (a term that includes minorities), given the disgraceful flaws in its electoral system, rule-of-law vigilance, public risk awareness and information availability (even the Mongols learnt faster, joke Baghdadis). This blunts the appeal of the Uncle Sam brand of democracy, with its exalted concentration of firepower, every bit as much as the lurid tales of prison torture.

Nor does the US seem keen on dialogue. This is bad news. It deprives the rest of the world of a chance to hear America's response to questions that need urgent answering. Is enforcing a West-designed apparatus of democracy, for instance, any smarter an effort than enforcing a West-designed dress code?

Speaking of dress codes, what makes the US so sure about how much sexuality in the public domain is self-evidently good?

That's easy, retort liberals-sporting lycra leos are a matter of individual right, not to be denied so long as no one else's rights are denied; the real blasphemy here is in turning individuals into facelessly covered commodities (and thus vulnerable to abuse).

Ah, but there's an alternate viewpoint too, one that rarely gets taken seriously anywhere under Western dominance. The cultish celebration of 'hot bods' could re-order society into an arbitrary hierarchy of 'sexiness' that meddles with people's self-esteem, weakens the cause of sexual equity and hobbles the collective pursuit of happiness. So, the refusal to fit the Barbie mould might just be a matter of principled ambition rather than blind resistance to the West. And it's not a silly issue, given the heat that it generates across the world. Natural selection is not an easy thing at all, and needs open minds to discuss it-on both sides.

The good news is that a mutual engagement of minds is not out of the question. Creditably, some of the White House's speeches have been inclusive and flexible enough not to alienate too many people much further. The cross-section of opinion at home is not entirely being ignored. Likewise, some of Iran's responses to American posturing have been a combination of restraint and resolve. The rest of the world's opinion is of even more importance to the smaller republic.

That gives hope for a sustained dialogue. Not one of the mighty and the threatened, but one of liberty and peace. No prejudging the other. As a start, Iran must not paint horns on Uncle Sam's head, knowing full well the ill effects of such noxious imagery. There's danger in people getting the wrong idea. The US must not armtwist Iran by the skimpy authority of the bikini test, if the latter shows the remotest desire to keep its curves wrapped up in a bewildering assortment of layers and folds. There's danger in people lacking respect for others.