In 2015, seven countries signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), expecting to constrain Iran’s nuclear weapon program. With the U.S. Congress neither ratifying nor disapproving the plan, U.N. Security Council resolution 2231 implemented the agreement. In 2018, a new U.S. administration unilaterally withdrew. In 2021, yet another new administration signaled re-engagement. What should be the path forward?
Whether for or against, productive relations between the U.S. and Iran are a mess. Understanding a failed negotiation is problematic. Add a multitude of actors and parties, and favorable outcomes appear impossible.
Negotiators consider present and future exchanges with the same tools, albeit in a different order. Deconstructing an existing negotiation operates in reverse: elements of engagement before those of preparation.
Non-negotiables, Conversation Starters
Relations between the U.S. and Iran have been tumultuous since at least 1953. There has also been a long history of involvement by other regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Every actor has some non-negotiable position: no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles, freedom to pursue or prevent national interests. JCPOA restrictions run out over the next four years, and the agreement itself expires in 2030. Fixed positions and limited time.
Negotiators wonder if better terms are possible with new deals. Or if there are new conditions or penalties. But these are secondary questions since engagement drives negotiation. No dialogue, no progress.
Primary is reviewing the changes that limited progress during earlier encounters. For a current negotiation, this last step for a future negotiation establishes context. Non-negotiable positions result from something earlier.
No Relationship, No Trust
Iran traded progress on nuclear arms for that on economics. The U.S. reneged on that promise and imposed new penalties. Intentionally or not, the U.S. approach since 2018 also drew a peculiar equivalence between the threat of nuclear war and that of conventional conflict. With the U.S. approach adding language about regime change, this seemed only to enhance many actors’ calls for retribution. Why would either trust the other to fulfill any future deal?
The greater the number of actors, the more a more publicized position is for internal consumption. They establish positions of power and leverage, not solutions. So we ask why the earlier engagement did not create support.
Negotiations are between people, not companies, countries, or classes. People develop a relationship, decide whether to trust the other, and then develop creative solutions to vexing problems. Talking to yourself only establishes goals.
Conflicting Frameworks, Irrelevant Goals
The 2018 U.S. administration reflected American and Middle Eastern regional actors long present in the debate. Their frame encompassed all measures of state-to-state behavior, equating nuclear weapons with conventional issues. Unilateral withdrawal created a new problem for any following government (perhaps part of their objective). The equivalence brought those other regional issues to the table, for Iran just as much as for the U.S.
A negotiation’s personality determines the direction toward a solution; that’s why it is a critical step in preparation. Alternate frameworks nearly always guarantee failure, especially in multi-actor negotiations.
The framework of a negotiation’s personality guides perception and prioritization of goals. Practical solutions often develop stepwise: solve the most significant problem first. Ensure a net positive, and then build on that success.
Patient Engagement, Real Solutions
Seven diverse national governments built a consensus, prioritizing impairment of nuclear weapons in exchange for open markets. Not for want of trying, no country has ever prevented another from creating nuclear weapons. The reason: they work as deterrents even as a hedge during development. Specific negotiation objectives create solutions; solutions require trust; trust requires relationship. The U.S. needs to develop a unified goal and reach-out to Iran.
Negotiators openly discuss objectives and trade-offs to create a primary framework. That establishes prioritized goals for all to see. The skillful are then creative enough to take the first step, trusting the process of engagement.
Sufficient trust within and between the parties will take time and effort. Yet, there are always opportunities present in negotiations, especially multi-party ones. There is no other pathway to long-term, high-value success.