This is not diplomacy

The point of diplomacy is to find common ground whereby the parties can move forward on areas of agreement even as larger issues remain unresolved. As example, the Russians and US agreeing to arms limitations during the Cold War.

In the case of Iraq, a successful diplomatic initiative between the US and Iran might focus on areas of common interest such as cooperation in repairing and rebuilding infrastructure, working together to get the water, sewers, and power flowing to improve the conditions for all Iraqis.

Instead, we got this:

During the talks, U.S. envoy David Satterfield pointed to his briefcase which he said contained documents proving Iran was arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

"Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq," Iran's chief envoy Abbas Araghchi shot back, according to an official familiar to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, only said that American delegates exchanged views with the Iranians "directly and in the presence of others" during talks, which he described as "constructive and businesslike."

But Labid Abbawi, a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who attended the meeting, confirmed that an argument broke out between the Iranian and American envoys. He would not elaborate.

It sounds like this took place at the big table in front of everyone. Tell me how this bullying approach improves the US position. Tell me how this benefits anyone.

(Satterfield is normally very levelheaded, so either he was somehow provoked or this confrontation was planned.)