Although the international community still knows very little about the highest-level peace talks between the US and Iran in 47 years, facilitated by Shehbaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, some obvious red flags appeared in the morning-after news reports—as JD Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner flew home less than 24 hours after their arrival in Islamabad.

As The New York Times reported: “Vice President JD Vance summed up the failure of 21 hours of negotiations with Iran in one sentence: ‘They have chosen not to accept our terms.’ To Iranian officials, that line reflected their biggest problem with the talks: The United States they argue, had not come to negotiate.” As Javid Zarif (who led the Iranian negotiating team on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, negotiated by the Obama administration to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but later torn up by President Donald Trump) wrote on X, “No negotiations—at least with Iran—will succeed based on ‘our/your terms.’”

This highlights that, as expected, the talks took the form of a “hard-bargaining” (also called distributive bargaining) approach to negotiation where the parties seek to achieve a zero-sum (win-lose) outcome rather than a positive sum (win-win) outcome. Too often, however, they end up with a lose-lose outcome, as occurred in this situation. In hard bargaining, parties present their positions (i.e., their preferred solution to the issues) as demands—the Iranians offered a 10-point plan; the US, a 15-point plan—both exchanged before the talks began, a tactic that is not recommended by experienced peacemakers.

In the lead-up to the negotiations, it was initially reported that indirect “proximity talks” were planned—where the third-party mediator moves back and forth between the delegations, who are placed in close proximity to one another in nearby, but separate locations. This typically tends to be a much more productive means of negotiation than direct talks, as it represents each party talking to and negotiating with the impartial third-party mediator, rather than the other party, allowing each delegation to avoid the confrontation and aggravation of dealing directly with its adversary. Moreover, it allows the mediator to try out various possibilities for creative solutions by using a “one-text procedure” to develop a text that is controlled by the mediator and continuously adjusted to address each party’s concerns and allow the mediator, over time, to get ever closer to agreement.

Parties need a constructive process to help them engage in meaningful problem solving, especially where there is no trust and they have a long-term hostile relationship.

On the day, however, after brief separate meetings by US and Iranian delegations with the Pakistani prime minister, direct talks were convened. Unlike the common wisdom that it is good to have the parties talking to one another, this kind of negotiation is not helpful to constructive problem solving. Instead, it is likely to break down into confrontational exchanges, whereby each party simply reiterates its positions and demands—and typically issues threats and ultimatums and employs other pressure tactics to try to force the other to concede, causing each to become ever more entrenched in its positions and more resistant to new ideas.

Another problem was the totally unrealistic expectation that was created for the talks—the idea that an agreement settling decades of serious grievances between the US and Iran might be negotiated within a weekend. A........

© Common Dreams