Diplomatic breakthroughs are often undermined not at the negotiating table, but by the public rhetoric that surrounds them. The next stage of this initiative is therefore no longer primarily nuclear. It is psychological.

Every major diplomatic initiative involves two negotiations. One takes place across the table between governments. The other takes place at home, where leaders must persuade their own citizens that compromise serves their long-term national interest. Negotiators produce agreements. Leaders build acceptance. That requires three things: consistency, respect, and public confidence.

Consistency matters because contradictory public statements can undermine months of careful diplomacy. Respect matters because firmness need not come at the expense of dignity. Strong leadership does not require abandoning firmness. It requires exercising firmness with consistency, fairness, and respect. Public confidence matters because agreements rarely endure unless ordinary citizens believe they will improve their lives.

This challenge is particularly significant in negotiations between the United States and Iran because the two societies communicate differently. American political culture often rewards directness, speed, and decisive public messaging. Iranian political culture generally places greater emphasis on patience, ceremony, personal respect, and carefully measured language. Neither approach is inherently superior. They are simply different. Effective diplomacy requires recognizing those differences rather than assuming one style will naturally succeed across cultures.

During my years in American higher education, I witnessed how dramatically communication styles vary even within the U.S. What is considered appropriately direct in one region may be perceived as unnecessarily confrontational in another. International diplomacy magnifies those differences even further.

One achievement already deserves recognition. After nearly half a century without sustained direct engagement, senior American and Iranian representatives have sat across the same negotiating table. That alone represents a remarkable diplomatic milestone. Such meetings do not guarantee success, but they create possibilities that did not previously exist. The governments of Qatar and Pakistan also deserve recognition for helping create an environment in which direct dialogue became possible.

Public threats, sarcastic remarks, and inflammatory rhetoric from either side can quickly erode confidence that negotiators have spent months trying to build. Every leadership faces domestic constituencies that question compromise, fear concessions, or doubt the intentions of the other side. Those concerns deserve to be acknowledged rather than exploited. Leadership is measured not by escalating rhetoric, but by maintaining public confidence while keeping negotiations moving forward.

Too much public discussion has focused on who won, who lost, or who appeared stronger. Far less attention has been devoted to the larger question: What would both societies gain if diplomacy ultimately succeeds? After nearly five decades of estrangement, both nations have paid enormous economic, strategic, and human costs. The more important question is no longer who prevailed in yesterday’s confrontation, but whether tomorrow’s generation can inherit a more stable and prosperous future.

Ultimately, the purpose of diplomacy is not to produce agreements for their own sake. It is to improve the lives of ordinary people. American families seek economic stability, lower energy costs, greater prosperity, and fewer military conflicts. Iranian families seek economic opportunity, greater security, and the chance to build a better future for their children. Those aspirations are remarkably similar.

TRUMP’S CRITICS ARE WRONG: THE VISION BEHIND HIS IRAN DEAL

If President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance ultimately succeed in transforming this memorandum into a durable agreement, their greatest achievement will not be measured simply by a diplomatic document. It will be measured by whether they helped create conditions in which Americans and Iranians alike enjoy greater prosperity, greater security, and fewer reasons for future conflict. The Iranian negotiating team likewise deserves recognition for choosing dialogue over continued isolation despite substantial domestic political pressures.

If this initiative succeeds, history will remember not only the negotiators who drafted an agreement, but the leaders who persuaded their own societies that peace, prosperity, and mutual respect offered a stronger foundation than perpetual confrontation. Negotiations produce agreements. Leadership produces acceptance. And diplomacy succeeds when leaders help their own people imagine a better future than perpetual conflict.

Dr. Hamid Shirvani served as chancellor of the North Dakota University System and president of California State University, Stanislaus. He is currently a managing partner of the Higher Education Innovation Group, LLC, an international higher education consulting firm.