There\u2019s a moment in almost every significant negotiation when someone plants a flag: \u201cBefore we go any further, you need to do this.\u201d A precondition to continue a negotiation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s happening right now between the United States and Iran. At the time of this writing, Iran refuses to send negotiators to Pakistan unless the US lifts its naval blockade and releases a seized cargo ship. The US, meanwhile, has its own demands \u2014 open the Strait of Hormuz, halt uranium enrichment \u2014 before it will consider easing pressure. Both sides are essentially saying, \u201cYou go first.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This standoff can be frustrating to deal with, but it\u2019s not impossible to overcome. Here are 5 approaches that can help you get past preconditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Game of Chicken<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The most instinctive response to a precondition is to hold your ground. This strategy has merit \u2014 if your read on the power dynamic is correct. The side with the stronger position, the better alternative outcomes, and less urgency can usually afford to hold. But negotiators consistently underestimate how quickly power shifts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The side that \u201cwins\u201d the standoff today plants a seed of resentment that grows into the next conflict. When circumstances change and power shifts, the side that was forced to capitulate overcorrects, taking back what they gave up, and then some, as a signal that they won\u2019t be put in that position again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Open Door<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A more elegant approach \u2014 one that experienced negotiators reach for when the game of chicken feels too risky \u2014 is what we call The Open Door.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead of accepting or rejecting the precondition outright, you suspend it temporarily with a conditional question: \u201cJust suppose I could agree to your precondition. What would the rest of the deal look like?\u201d This creates space to discover whether there\u2019s even a deal worth having before both sides expend all their energy fighting over the entry conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Open Door works because most preconditions are signals of something else \u2014 of resolve, of domestic political constraints, or of testing how serious the other party is. When you respond with a hypothetical rather than a yes or no, you honor the signal without committing to action. Both sides can say they haven\u2019t moved, yet the conversation continues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The risk: A skilled negotiator on the other side may try to collapse the hypothetical back into a real commitment. But successfully holding the conditional framework under pressure can unlock movement that a direct confrontation never would.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Break the Precondition Apart<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEnd the blockade\u201d or \u201chalt enrichment\u201d sound absolute but typically contain multiple components, some of which may be tradeable. When you disaggregate a precondition, you open the conversation from \u201cagree or disagree\u201d to \u201cwhich parts can we build on?\u201d, which is a much more productive place to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is harder than it sounds. It requires the other side to explain their precondition rather than just assert it, which they may resist. But the negotiator who can move a conversation from positions to components is typically the one who finds a path forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Use a Third Party to Absorb the Tension<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do with a precondition is hand it to someone else. A skilled intermediary can act as a buffer, holding the precondition in a separate channel, working equivalencies behind the scenes and allowing both parties to tell their audiences that they haven\u2019t moved, while the intermediary quietly finds a path. This is the role that Pakistan is attempting to play in the current Iran-US situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This tactic helps mitigate emotion and keep momentum going forward. However, each negotiator needs to trust that the intermediary is representing their positions faithfully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Simultaneous Gesture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rather than one party making a unilateral concession on a precondition, both sides agree to make coordinated, reciprocal gestures that are choreographed carefully so both can claim they received something and neither had to go first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This works well if both parties can trust each other enough to step together. You probably experienced this as a kid, fighting over something with a sibling or friend. Both of you grabbed a toy at the same time and after yelling, \u201cYou let go first!\u201d someone finally said, \u201cWe\u2019ll let go at the same time . . . one . . . two . . . three!\u201d It\u2019s the same concept \u2014 and as we all learned, not everyone lets go on three.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n