From a mediator’s perspective the U.S.-Iran mediation was not exceptonal.

First, who led the sessions? After six weeks of war, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan attempted to assume the role, but ultimately Pakistan emerged as the key mediator. Pakistan has long maintained a policy of neutrality with Iran. Russia, China, and the Gulf countries were not seen as neutral, as they were aligned with either the U.S. or Iran. Yet, while seen as neutral, Pakistan could gain as an important diplomatic actor by convening negotiation between the world’s largest economy and one of the Middle East’s most important countries.

Second, how did the sessions go? Pakistan acted as a “shuttle mediator” facilitating a two-week ceasefire and then hosting talks in Islamabad. The mediation was the first meeting between the two countries in over a decade. At the Serena Hotel delegates stayed in separate rooms while Pakistani officials shuttled proposals back and forth.

Third, what were the demands and interests? Going into the mediation, the U.S. demanded Iran’s nuclear stockpile be eliminated, navigation be secured, and their be regional de-escalation. Iran demanded withdrawal of U.S. bases in the region, all sanctions lifted, frozen assets released, compensation for war damages, and recognition of its nuclear enrichment program. Overall, the U.S. was seeking limitations while Iran sought status.

Fourth, why did the mediation fail? After 21 hours U.S. representatives said the mediation failed because Iran would not commit to abandoning its nuclear program, while Iranian negotiators blamed the U.S. for the breakdown.

A mediator might say both parties lacked the “readiness” to settle, that is, continuing the conflict was seen as preferable to a settlement.

———————————————————————————————————————————

Fred Jandt is the author of “How to Survive a Mediation,” available now at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever books are sold.

Disputes that end with a verbal agreement are likely to fail.

When parties say, “We’re in agreement,” they’re really saying, “I assume you agree with what I think the agreement is,” which rarely is the case.

Regardless of how the ending of a dispute is reached, there is no agreement until it’s drafted as a document that all parties agree to sign.

New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 is an example of parties having completely different understandings of an agreement. The treaty consists simply of a preamble and three articles. Great Britain prepared drafts of the treaty in both English and the native Māori language. Unfortunately, the two versions are not exact translations. In the English language version the tribal chiefs ceded sovereignty over their territories to the Queen. The Māori language version uses words asserting the Māori would retain full sovereignty over their homes, land, and its resources. The controversy over the translation continues to this day.

Whether the dispute is personal, business, or international, if it ends in an agreement, it should then be drafted, reviewed, and signed in order for it to be legally agreed upon.

Guidelines mediators use to help disputants develop their agreement include:

• Specific and concise language that’s understood by all parties.

• Issues to be resolved in a final, permanent form without conditions.

• Defined key elements of who does what, when, where, and how.

• Clear mutual consideration (when something of value is exchanged).

——————-——————————————————————————————————————

Fred Jandt is the author of “How to Survive a Mediation,” available now at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever books are sold.