The USA used a good tactic in her conflict with Iran: a warning that was conveyed through the press.
According to reports in the media, U.S. president Obama sent Ayatollah Chamenei a message through “secret channels”. He warned Iran’s spiritual leader to cross the “red line”. If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, which is crucial to oil transports, the USA will be forced to react.
This “secret message” was published in the New York Times. Upon publication, the New York Times wrote, “The officials declined to describe the unusual contact between the two governments, and whether there had been an Iranian reply.”
As you know from my previous blog entries, no threat must ever be made during a negotiation. A warning, however, has a great effect.
A warning is communicated in the subjunctive, the parties warn of grave consequences for both sides.
By contrast, a threat is communicated directly, the party threatens with immediate sanctions. A threat leads to a commitment which will always be disadvantageous. Those who threaten must implement those threats, and that takes away their own options for actions.
What is interesting in Obama's case is the conveyance through the press. He chose the most highly regarded daily in the USA, the credibility of the New York Times is very high.
Immediately upon publication of the “secret” message, it is again mitigated or denied. This is important, because otherwise the warning can grow into a threat. The purpose of the warning has already been fulfilled—Chamenei now knows about the “red line” and the world sees a firm president of the United States.
Negotiation tip:
Do not threaten.
Warn—common interests, common consequences if the negotiation fails, always in the hypothetical.
Use the press for conveyance—however, you cannot use this tactic very often; in my experience you can do this only once during the entire negotiation process.
Wishing you the best of success in your negotiation, cordially yours from Washington DC