Strategic interests can even bring rivals to the negotiating table when relations are strained. But when relationships sour, and the price of affiliation grows, even aligned interests can’t necessarily forge a coalition. In negotiation, leaders frequently believe that cooperation follows naturally from shared interests. The reality is more complicated.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s current effort to put together an international coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz reflects a paradox familiar to veteran negotiators: Sometimes rivals are willing to negotiate even under less-than-friendly conditions, while allies prefer not act if the relationship has soured.
At a time when global oil flows are so reliant on stability in one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors, the challenge of erecting a coalition around Hormuz highlights a broader principle that extends well beyond geopolitics.
In negotiation, interests can create common ground for discussion, but the final determination is a result of two questions: Do I trust you? and – what will it cost me if I share a stage with you?
When Interests Override Relationships
It is one of the most crucial chokepoints in the global economy, the Strait of Hormuz. About 20% of the world’s oil supply flows through this narrow maritime corridor linking the Persian Gulf with international markets.
For China, the stability of Hormuz is not a side issue. Much of the energy it imports passes through the region. Any lasting disruption would directly hit Chinese manufacturing, global supply chains and economic stability. As far as negotiation goes, the price of inaction is too high and therefore impossible to neglect.
That’s why Beijing might be open to talking about maritime security even when the broader political relationship with Washington remains fraught. Business Negotiation Executives face the same fate. Companies frequently negotiate with partners they hardly trust, or even directly compete with, because the economics call for it. Engagement, in other words, is not an indicator of alignment.
The Alliance Paradox
But the reverse dynamic seems to be happening at once. Even if China is willing to talk about cooperation despite frayed relations, however, some of the traditional partners in the U.S. camp have been reluctant to join up – even though their economies rely on stable energy flows through Hormuz as well. This is where negotiations are less about interests and more about relationships.
Building a coalition depends on voluntary alignment. Countries must determine whether the goal is a worthy one, but they also need to decide if they are willing to stand publicly with the leader of that effort. Past interactions matter.
Diplomacy is cumulative, as is business negotiation. Partners in past negotiations often determine their readiness to cooperate in subsequent ones by how they were treated during previous negotiations. Joining a coalition, even one that is on their interests, can become politically costly when allies feel they are being criticized publicly, pressured or viewed as transactional actors rather than partners.
The Cost of Alignment
In the face of complex negotiations, leaders are not simply asking if cooperation makes sense. They’re also asking a harder question: how much is it going to cost me to be in with this partnership?
With the Hormuz coalition, the hesitation of some U.S. allies may not be about its strategic goal. Many of these countries obviously have a stake in steady energy flows. The calculation is broader.
Leaders must factor in the top-down cost of alignment: how the decision will be viewed at home, how stakeholders will react and whether it causes friction in a political or organizational sense.
They must also factor in reputational risk. Aligning publicly with a leader perceived as unpredictable, confrontational or capricious can have long-term implications that transcend the immediate decision.
And then there is the long-term strategic price. Partnerships are rarely isolated events. They point to future positioning, future expectations and future dependencies. In negotiation lingo, this is the cost of standing next to someone. Executives face the same dilemma.
A company might go into a partnership that aligns perfectly with its economic interest, and hold back because of the brand implications, leadership dynamics or fear about how the other might behave over time. So the decision here isn’t just about value creation. This is a risk management of the relationship itself.
The Relationship Economy of Geopolitics
The Hormuz episode illustrates a wider principle that is shaping international negotiations today: the relationship economy. Power still matters. Economic interests still matter. Security concerns still matter. But relationships play an increasingly large role in whether cooperation actually happens.
Countries seldom cooperate just because their interests align. They cooperate if the political and relational costs of cooperation are limited. The same pattern is true for business leaders.
The CEO who publicly disparages a strategic supplier may need that supplier again in the next contract cycle. A procurement executive who shames a vendor partner may walk away with the better of the current deal – but damage the relationship needed for future partnership. Coalition politics works according to the same logic.
Three Strategic Lessons for Leaders
First, even rivals can join the discussion when interests are strategic enough. Second, if relationships are strained, partners may not even join as allies. Third, leaders are always weighing the cost of alignment: how that will reflect internally and externally, not to mention what it means for the long term.
Leverage may open the conversation, and might draw parties to the negotiating table. But over the long term, it is relationship capital, and the cost of association, that rubs out whether coalitions actually form. For those executives who calibrate alliances, partnerships, and complex negotiations, the lesson is evident: Relationships are not a fluffy asset.They are strategic infrastructure.
Yael Chayu is a global business negotiation expert, keynote speaker, and strategic advisor to executives across industries. She is a doctoral researcher in Behavioral Economics at Reichman University, where she also serves as Academic Director of the Business Negotiation Program at FORE Executive Education.
