A couple of days old, but I just had a chance to read Mark Steyn’s latest for the Sun Times, about the genocidal talk coming from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the world’s oddly muted response: But seriously folks, this clown is dangerous.

So let’s see: We have a Holocaust denier who wants to relocate an entire nation to another continent, and he happens to be head of the world’s newest nuclear state. (They’re not 100 percent fully-fledged operational, but happily for them they can drag out the pseudo-negotiations with the European Union until they are. And Washington certainly won’t do anything, because after all if we’re not 100 percent certain they’ve got WMD — which we won’t be until there’s a big smoking crater live on CNN one afternoon — it would be just another Bushitlerburton lie to get us into another war for oil, right?)

So how does the United States react? Well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the comments of Ahmadinejad “further underscore our concerns about the regime.”

Really? But wait, the world’s superpower wasn’t done yet. The State Department moved to a two-adjective alert and described Ahmadinejad’s remarks as “appalling” and “reprehensible.” “They certainly don’t inspire hope among any of us in the international community that the government of Iran is prepared to engage as a responsible member of that community,” said spokesman Adam Ereli.

You don’t say. Ahmadinejad was speaking in the holy city of Mecca, head office of the “religion of peace,” during a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. There were fiftysomething other heads of government in town. How many do you think took their Iranian colleague to task?

Well, what’s new? But, that being so, it would be heartening if the rest of the world could muster a serious response to the guy. How one pines for a plain-spoken tell-it-like-it-is fellow like, say, former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali? As he memorably said of Iran, “It’s a totalitarian regime.” Oh, no, wait. He said that about the United States. On Iran, he’s as impeccably circumspect and discreet as the State Department.

“Diplomatic” language is one of the last holdovers of the pre-democratic age. It belongs to a time when international relations were conducted exclusively between a handful of eminent representatives of European dynasties. Today it’s all out in the open — President Ahmaddasanatta proposed his not-quite-final solution for Israel on TV. McLellan and Ereli likewise gave their response on TV. So the language of international relations is no longer merely the private code of diplomats but part of the public discourse — and, if the government of the United States learns anything from the last four years, it surely ought to be that there’s a price to be paid for not waging the war as effectively in the psychological arenas as in the military one. What does it mean when one party can talk repeatedly about the liquidation of an entire nation and the other party responds that this further “underscores our concerns,” as if he’d been listening to an EU trade representative propose increasing some tariff by half a percent?