Isn't this true of everyone? Most countries would not change their positions, or rush into an agreement --- unless coerced, see benefits for themselves, or see that sitting in PAT position will not produce much more then what is already on the table. There are rare instances in history when a party in negotiations jumps to conclusions of goodwill and benevolence of other party, just to be bitterly disappointed when their expectations do not prove true. Period of Cold War end comes to mind when too many promises were made, and too much trust has been placed in those promises. Such misculculations have long term consequences. I am never sure when prudence and patience turn into dragging out. But I would have to guess that it happens when the benefits of holding out are by far smaller then what is being lost by waiting. But even that is a judgement that is best left to those involved. Who is to know that the benefits of dragging out are still outweigh --- in the value system of those practicing it --- the marginal losses? As it seems to happen, US and Iran are playing different games. US is playing poker, and waiting for Iran to blink. Iran is playing chess, and is only interested in moving US to pat position. But the observers are not disintersted parties. Russia's position could not have been better planned or timed. The position aims at giving space to parties for settlement. It is not often that US finds itself in pat position. For this reason alone, the rest of the players need to give a lots of breathing room to the superpower to settle down to business. If in spite of this gentleness on behalf of others if the superpower does not grasp the moment, others will always have time to adjust accordingly.