HiG in DN Debatt: On the U.S.-Iran negotiations

In an op-ed in *Dagens Nyheter*, Lars-Johan Åge, a professor at the University of Gävle, highlights the tense situation in the talks between the U.S. and Iran. As another deadline approaches, the negotiations are marked by mistrust, threats, and extensive lists of demands—a situation that risks further stalling the process.

Åge warns that this approach can lead down the wrong path. “Starting negotiations with long lists of demands is not only a sign of distance and a lack of trust,” he writes, pointing out that it also increases the risk of talks breaking down without any results. When every demand must be defended, it becomes difficult to identify what is actually most important and where compromises are possible.

According to Åge, the consequences are poorer decisions, strained relationships, and a waste of time and resources. Negotiations risk turning into a battle of prestige where concessions are seen as weaknesses rather than steps toward a solution.

Instead, he emphasizes the importance of shifting perspectives. “Experience shows, however, that even deadlocked negotiations can turn around if the focus shifts from positions to interests,” Åge notes. By understanding the underlying needs—such as security, sovereignty, and economic stability—the possibility of reaching sustainable agreements increases.

Ultimately, Lars-Johan Åge argues that it comes down to a choice: to continue negotiating demands against demands, or to start negotiating what can actually be agreed upon.

The full opinion piece can be read here (DN 4/18):
“The U.S. and Iran Must Scrap Their Lists of Demands” External link.