from The Boston Globe's Letters to the Editors Section, February 15, 2007, page A10
 

As a professional in the field of negotiation, it was encouraging to read “Getting to yes on Iran” by Mark Brzezinski and Ray Takeyh (op-ed, Feb. 6) especially in light of the Bush administration’s ban on negotiating with “terrorist states.”

However, I fear that Brzezinski and Takeyh missed the point when they wrote, “A basic problem in negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s needs, desires, and fears.”

In conflict, parties often have contrasting positions, but actually share very similar interests (i.e. needs, desires, and fears). In this case, both the United State and Iran share the important interests of safety, security, stability, and economic and political viability. It is not in either side’s interest to escalate this conflict.

It is through focusing on shared interests, rather than opposing positions, that the parties may be able to begin to work towards resolution. Recognizing that both sides are essentially seeking the same goals will enable them to “[work] side by side, attacking the problem not each other” as the authors, and Fisher and Ury in “Getting to Yes,” suggest.

Stephen Frenkel
Boston

The writer is director of negotiation programs at Mediation Works Inc. 

Click here to read the original article, “Getting To Yes on Iran” by Mark Brzezinski and Ray Takeyh (Boston Globe, Op-Ed, February 6, 2007).
 

Click here to return to the top of the page. 

Click here to return to the article index.