When the negotiation is the goal, not the means

Doron Hadar analyzes the renewed talks between Iran and the US after the midterm elections, distinguishing between instrumental negotiation, aimed at reaching an agreement, and expressive negotiation, where the benefit lies in the process itself. He questions whether both countries are negotiating to achieve the same goal.

Doron Hadar, a former head of the IDF General Staff negotiation team, analyzes the renewed talks between Iran and the United States following the US midterm elections. He distinguishes between two types of motivation for conducting negotiations: instrumental, aimed at achieving a defined agreement, and expressive, where the benefit lies in the process itself—buying time, wearing down the opponent, creating international legitimacy. The gaps between the sides remain significant: Washington demands progress on the nuclear issue and the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran conditions the continuation of the process on the removal of sanctions and the release of frozen assets. Hadar argues that Iran may see time as a strategic asset, and that the very act of sitting opposite the American superpower constitutes a political achievement. He warns that if the US measures success by progress toward a deal and Iran measures it by the time it has gained, the two sides are playing two different games.

When the negotiation is the goal, not the means