Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
Is a Nuclear Deal with Iran Possible? An Analytical Framework for the Iran Nuclear Negotiations
Summary
Varied diplomatic approaches by multiple negotiators over the past several years have failed to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. Mutual hostility, misperception, and flawed diplomacy may be responsible. Yet, more fundamentally, no mutually acceptable deal may exist. To assess this possibility, a “negotiation analytic” framework conceptually disentangles two issues: (1) whether a feasible deal exists; and (2) how to design the most promising process to achieve one. Focusing on whether a “zone of possible agreement” exists, a graphical negotiation analysis precisely relates input assumptions about the parties’ interests, their no-deal options, and possible deals. Under a plausible, mainstream set of such assumptions, the Iranian regime’s no-deal options, at least through the fall of 2012, appear superior to potential nuclear agreements. If so, purely tactical and process-oriented initiatives will fail.Opening space for a mutually acceptable nuclear deal—one that avoids both military conflict and a nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable Iran—requires relentlessly and creatively worsening Iran’s no-deal options while enhancing the value of a deal to the Iranian regime. Downplaying both coercive options and upside potential, as international negotiators have often done, works against this integrated strategy. If this approach opens a zone of possible agreement, sophisticated negotiation will be key to reaching a worthwhile agreement.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
International Security
For Academic Citation:
James K. Sebenius and Michael K. Singh. “Is a Nuclear Deal with Iran Possible? An Analytical Framework for the Iran Nuclear Negotiations.” Quarterly Journal: International Security, vol. 37. no. 3. (Winter 2012/13): 52–91 .
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- International Affairs Blog
Nuclear Policy at the G7: Six Key Questions
Journal Article
- Security Studies
Madman or Mad Genius? The International Benefits and Domestic Costs of the Madman Strategy
Journal Article
- Ethics & International Affairs
Nuclear Ethics Revisited
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
US-China Relations: An Interview with Graham Allison
Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Addressing Russian and Chinese Cyber Threats: A Transatlantic Perspective on Threats to Ukraine and Beyond
Summary
Varied diplomatic approaches by multiple negotiators over the past several years have failed to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. Mutual hostility, misperception, and flawed diplomacy may be responsible. Yet, more fundamentally, no mutually acceptable deal may exist. To assess this possibility, a “negotiation analytic” framework conceptually disentangles two issues: (1) whether a feasible deal exists; and (2) how to design the most promising process to achieve one. Focusing on whether a “zone of possible agreement” exists, a graphical negotiation analysis precisely relates input assumptions about the parties’ interests, their no-deal options, and possible deals. Under a plausible, mainstream set of such assumptions, the Iranian regime’s no-deal options, at least through the fall of 2012, appear superior to potential nuclear agreements. If so, purely tactical and process-oriented initiatives will fail.Opening space for a mutually acceptable nuclear deal—one that avoids both military conflict and a nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable Iran—requires relentlessly and creatively worsening Iran’s no-deal options while enhancing the value of a deal to the Iranian regime. Downplaying both coercive options and upside potential, as international negotiators have often done, works against this integrated strategy. If this approach opens a zone of possible agreement, sophisticated negotiation will be key to reaching a worthwhile agreement.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - International Affairs Blog
Nuclear Policy at the G7: Six Key Questions
Journal Article - Security Studies
Madman or Mad Genius? The International Benefits and Domestic Costs of the Madman Strategy
Journal Article - Ethics & International Affairs
Nuclear Ethics Revisited
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
US-China Relations: An Interview with Graham Allison
Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Addressing Russian and Chinese Cyber Threats: A Transatlantic Perspective on Threats to Ukraine and Beyond