Foreign policy, contrary to how it is sometimes portrayed in media and on social networks, is not a domain for maximalist aspirations; it is a domain for managing realities. States make decisions not in an idealized world, but in a complex, competitive environment shaped by economic, security, and geopolitical constraints. For this reason, no negotiation, including recent efforts to finalize a memorandum of understanding on ending the war between Iran and the US, can be judged through absolutist or idealistic standards. What matters in politics is not achieving the best imaginable outcome, but reaching the best possible outcome.
One of the key lessons of realist politics (Realpolitik) is the distinction between the “possible” and the “desirable.” In this view, politics is the art of choosing among real options, not abstract wishes. States must simultaneously consider their own capabilities, the other side’s capacity, the balance of power, regional conditions, economic realities, public opinion, and international trends. The result of such calculation is usually an agreement in which neither side fully achieves its maximum demands, but both conclude that agreement carries lower costs and greater benefits than continued confrontation. Iran, by virtue of its notable resistance to US and Israeli aggression, is in a strong position for negotiation and leverage; however, even in such circumstances, commitment to realism in talks remains essential.
From this perspective, the common tendency to frame every agreement as a contest between an absolute “winner” and “loser” is not consistent with the logic of international relations. If one side were to impose all its demands while the other gained nothing, this would no longer be an agreement, but rather surrender or imposed will. An agreement only makes sense when it reflects a mutual calculation of interests, even if the level of benefit is uneven.
Diplomatic history also confirms this reality. Many of the most significant international agreements were reached not in conditions of full trust, but at the height of competition, mistrust, and even hostility. What brought parties to the negotiating table was not a change in the nature of disputes, but a shift in cost-benefit calculations. When continuing a crisis becomes more costly than reaching a limited understanding, negotiation becomes the rational option.
Accordingly, any agreement must be evaluated within the real conditions of its time. No agreement can be judged in isolation from the environment in which it is formed. National power, deterrence capacity, economic conditions, regional circumstances, levels of external pressure or support, and even timing all shape the quality of an agreement. An agreement that is optimal in one period may not be desirable in another, and vice versa.
This is the logic of Realpolitik: a framework that sees politics not as a field of idealized aspirations, but as a space for responsible and realistic decision-making. In this approach, a successful statesman is not one who rigidly insists on maximal positions or views any flexibility as weakness, but one who, with a precise understanding of the strategic environment, extracts the greatest possible benefit from available resources.
Within this framework, power is not limited solely to military strength or economic capacity. Power becomes a strategic asset only when it can be translated, through diplomacy, into sustainable political, security, and economic outcomes. Just as diplomacy without power is fragile and ineffective, power that cannot be converted into national interests through negotiation fails to realize its full potential. In essence, diplomacy and power are complementary tools of a single strategy, not opposing paths.
From this standpoint, the criterion for evaluating an agreement is neither emotional reaction nor media portrayal, but its relation to national interests and alternative options. The key question is not whether an agreement is perfect and flawless, because in international politics, perfect agreements are rare. The real question is whether the agreement, compared to the status quo or other available options, enhances security, reduces costs, expands economic opportunities, preserves national power, and improves the ability to manage future developments.
Therefore, the concept of the “best agreement” must be understood within the realities of international politics. The best agreement is not one that fulfills all aspirations, but one that delivers the greatest benefit and lowest cost among available options. Such an approach is not a departure from principles, but rather a sign of maturity in governance and acceptance of the rules of statecraft in a world grounded in balance of power, interest calculation, and reality management.
A successful foreign policy is neither measured by maximalist slogans nor by emotional narratives of victory or defeat. What matters is a country’s ability to turn national capacity into sustainable outcomes. In this process, the best agreement is not necessarily the most perfect one, but the most rational and beneficial choice among existing realities, one that secures national interests today while also preserving future horizons for the country.