In the science of negotiations — whether commercial, military, security, political, or real estate — there is an indispensable legal principle: clear and explicit stipulation of the rights and obligations of the two or more parties covered by an agreement.
In political agreements between warring states, the matter becomes complex. It begins with a framework reflecting intentions, then the foundational principles, until we reach the stage of specific technical details such as timelines, geographic plans, and troop and weapons numbers.
The danger of this lies in the absence of a single, clear reference point with legally binding authority.
The danger, further, is that each party can step before its own public and declare that it has obtained the greatest agreement in its favour — that it alone, and no one else, has prevailed, and that the other side is utterly defeated. It is therefore no surprise to find both the Americans and the Iranians, along with their respective supporters, interpreting the recent statement of intent as a complete victory for themselves and an obvious capitulation by the other side.
We have 60 days from now for detailed negotiations — then we can pass judgment.