On Guard. Advance. Advance. Retreat: How Do We Decide When We're On the Fence?

Fencing isn't a requirement for peace proposals, but it does help.

Fencing followed shortly after the dawn of humanity. Dating back thousands of years, the sport has been one of the most structurally elegant forms of entertainment. The interactions between the two fighters demonstrate clear boundaries — and what it means to cross them. While it's helpful to know the difference between an épée and a foil, what leads to ultimate success is observing your opponent's stance. The attack comes after positioning yourself accordingly. Without proper technique, you're foiled. There's honor, tradition, and in the end, a sense of camaraderie. Building similar bonds in mediation requires seeking the same kind of information. What is each party's stance? Do they know the rules of engagement, and as they fight, do they develop a sense of closeness between the two? And yes, technique is critical in establishing agreements. The more a mediator engages, the cleaner the fight. As the referee, observing and engaging alongside the conflict is both a balance and an art form. Too much engagement and the mediator's ego is afoot; too little, and the Id takes over.

And that's only the tip of the Sabre.

There is bias in every room. Hardly anyone involved in a high-stakes negotiation is truly neutral. Even the most disciplined referee will lean towards one party or another. In mediation strategy, the acknowledgment of that bias is not a weakness. It is the first step toward managing it. The most effective mediators do not perform neutrally; they design for it — building in structures, witnesses, and counterweights that compensate for the inevitable human lean. The mediator who understands their own bias holds a significant advantage. In fencing terms: they have read the piste before the bout begins.

Let the fight proceed. Case in focus: Iran.

One of the longest periods of stability Iran has seen dates back hundreds of years, somewhere around the 1500s. Royalty suits them. Shah Abbas the Great expanded their military, economy, and quality of life. Women's rights in 1970s Iran were broadly comparable to women's rights in the US at the time.

The ideal historical landscape of choice.

If the objective is to facilitate a peaceful outcome by the mediators and parties involved, then keeping this country in a royal stance is your best bet. Their current request for supervision of their nuclear program may find some success if it is overseen by the King. If he's positioned correctly, all parties win.

When one party is on the fence, say royalty itself, what say you?

Tentative, partially committed, testing the perimeter of the engagement — the mediator's task is not to push them off it. Far from it. Keep the focus central on why the fight matters and what goal we're trying to achieve. With the right technique, we are not attacking the country, but the problem that resides within the country that has reached the King.

Not everyone needs to fence, but if you want to change the world, learn how to fight.