“Let’s Make a Deal” is a day-time game show that has been running on TV off and on since 1963. “The Art of the Deal”, a book ghost written by Tony Schwartz for Donald Trump in 1987, immediately landed on the best seller list, where it remained for nearly a year, and which first brought Trump’s name into the public domain.
The goal of the game and the intent of the book is to win. To close out a deal with the best outcome by either raking in the most money, or defeating, diminishing or in some cases — destroying the opposition. It is a transactional process. Over the years deal making has become a cultural value. “You’re fired” has become a common refrain. Winning — and dominating, has — in more and more arenas, taken precedence over listening, honoring and discovering.
And sometimes domination doesn’t work. Certainly not this past weekend when President Trump sent envoys Vice President JD Vance, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Islamabad, Pakistan to negotiate a deal with Iran to end the war, or at least to extend the ceasefire. They spent 21 hours at the bargaining table. The US figured it had all the leverage, given that the bombing (some 13,000 sorties between the US and Israel) has degraded most of the Iranian military. Maybe so, but not, apparently, the Iranian resolve, not to mention the leverage that Iran discovered it now has over the Strait of Hormuz. No accommodation – or even awareness, of cultural difference that require listening, honoring, discovering
Ten years ago the United States and Iran spent two years working out an agreement that both limited and monitored Iran’s nuclear production in exchange for sanctions to be limited and funds to be released. President Trump tore it up soon after he assumed office for the first time. Diplomacy had been replaced by force, aggression, bullying threats — and take it or leave it negotiating — all of which, it is assumed by those leading the charge, can be accomplished in short order.
It didn’t work. And I suspect it will not work until a fundamentally important ingredient is brought into the process: a commitment to human flourishing. Not just for the victors, but for everyone. If peace is going to be secured, some window needs to be created so that both sides can see that the vanquished opposition has an opportunity to rebuild – not just their infrastructure, but their very lives.
It can be readily argued that the Iranian leadership does not have a commitment to human flourishing; nearly fifty years of a brutal theocracy has demonstrated that it doesn’t. But it seems clear to me that from everything I have read and heard from the American side, the American negotiating team has not demonstrated any commitment to the future livelihood of Iranians. Certainly not from President Trump. Human flourishing, which has a spiritual dimension to it, is not in the mix. The spiritual component is vitally important for the process to move forward. From my perspective the spiritual ingredient is not only completely absent, but often is being repudiated as being weak.
It is said that the American and Iranians were and are “far apart” in their positions. The same can be said about the deepening polarization that continues to bedevil American society itself. We are far apart, often to the degree that we can’t muster up a commitment to bestow a desire for human flourishing with those who disagree with us—on war, on guns, on politics, on abortion, on immigration – you name it. This lack of commitment is crippling us as a country.
A way forward is to take a risk and go in. Into the mandorla, the space created when two circles intersect (think Venn Diagram from sixth grade math). For several years now I have been thinking and writing about the mandorla, and literally praying before it, in part because it is both so compelling and so frightening. What I have learned about this unique space is that it requires commitment and sacrifice in an ongoing paradox. I am finding that I need to be clearer about my theological and political positions, and to hold them with even greater conviction. At the same time, being in the mandorla space requires a recognition that those who come into the space from a different (opposing) circle have a different story to tell, often with radically different perspectives, stories that need to be listened to and honored. Ultimately, entering the mandorla – from whatever direction, requires a commitment to human flourishing – for everyone. It is a commitment that moves from the binary of us and them, to a recognition that we all – friend and foe alike – fall into the dignity of humanity’s us.
There are many who won’t take this journey. Holding on to the us vs. them binary feels too secure, too certain, too safe, to give up. And these days we are forever being exposed to forces and voices that insist that any acknowledgement or honor of an opposing view is a form of spiritual or political treason. People then get sealed in their silo.
And then there are many others who simply cannot enter the mandorla because of painful experiences of abuse, trauma or betrayal – experiences that carry open wounds, or a fragile healing of scars that can readily be ripped off if they enter a space of vulnerability before they are ready.
Wisdom is required to sort out those who can’t enter the mandorla because of the risks involved and those who, because of some rigidity, simply won’t. In any case, the rest of us – which I think makes up a huge swath of people living in this country, would do well to honor the uniqueness and transformative power of the mandorla space. And to recognize that deal making – be it over the war in Iran, or the decisions of a community, organization or family should not be reduced to a quick contest between who wins and who loses, who can be punished or defeated – but what is the best way for all the parties – which means everyone, can flourish into the fullness of their humanity.
