- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
Unimpressed by the drama of the Western world surrounding the acceptance or rejection of the peace framework, the supreme leader of Iran surprised the world by stating he is neither for nor against a deal that has not yet been made.|
It is a commentary, in itself, of the method of diplomacy that simply did not work on him. The technique was simply to raise a lot of fuss over accepting or rejecting the result, without the result, and then supply the substance of the deal depending on whether it was already accepted or rejected. One might say, but that is putting the cart before the horse. But, if there is a fool willing to go along with the setup, why not?
Clearly, despite all the hullaballoo, there has been really, to date, no deal at all. The "deal" is to be supplied AFTER the acceptance or rejection by Iran, while its counterparts are supposed to be incapacitated by internal debate, but then again, what is there to debate about if there has been NO DEAL TO DEBATE ON?
Well, hopefully, there will be a deal. War is not good for anybody. But if so much time has been wasted on acheiving a NO DEAL situation, one must wonder if there would be any deal at all, let alone by June 30th? Such, is the pathetic state of modern techniques of negotiation, that could be summed up in a simple motto - let the other side accept or reject the deal, then insist to the fellow and the world as to what it is. And the other one is, never accept a deal until 1 second before expiration of the deadline, i.e., always have the last say. Taken together, it only means, the best negotiation technique can only lead to failure, if both sides use the same technique, and the alternative to peace, becomes the only option left. If Zhou Enlai were to see this, he would not be able to stop laughing, until Henry tells him, "It's OK, I am here." Clearly, technique is not enough. You need real masters of the art.