120 years ago an Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, observed that about 20% of the people owned 80% of the land in Italy. This proportion soon began to appear in other statistics and has ultimately been summarised as "80% of the outcomes coming from 20% of the efforts".
Conversely, however, the remaining 20% requires 80% of the effort.
In other words, it takes relatively little input to achieve most of your goals, but chasing perfection is going to cost you a lot more.
It's clear that, deliberately or not, Pareto's Principle has guided many of Donald Trump's decisions, including the war with Iran, which is coming to a conclusion right now.
Being a pragmatic, not an idealist, he keeps chasing the best outcome at the lowest price. In essence, the best "deal".
As I explained before, the war broke out because the circumstances made it inevitable. Israel had to take advantage of the opening created by the demise of Hamas and Hezbollah, which could no longer constrain its activities against Tehran.
US came along for the ride to dictate the terms rather than be dragged into the war without proper preparation.
But after much of Iran's military capabilities had been decimated, after its nuclear program had been destroyed and enriched uranium buried under thousands of tons of rock, setting its atomic ambitions back by at least a few years, the lingering question was: what's next?
The regime didn't implode, nor has a more amenable government emerged since most of the political and military leadership were wiped out in February. While this wasn't strictly a military objective of the campaign, it was a "nice to have" that both Jerusalem and Washington hoped would happen.
Technically, they could continue the bombing raids. There are always more things that can be destroyed, but the law of diminishing returns (which appears to be related to Pareto's Principle) dictates that every subsequent bomb does relatively less and less incremental damage.
Most of the war's goals were accomplished in its first days.
Khamenei and IRGC's upper command were exterminated. Iran's navy, most of its missile capabilities and aerial power were degraded by mid-March, as were those of its nuclear facilities left standing after the bombings last June.
Iran has never been weaker while the cost to Americans and Israelis has been negligible. It was never a question if they would win the war but rather how much they would be able to get out of it.
It seems that "80%" is about right.
While the regime is still in charge, nobody has seen the new Supreme Leader yet and the country is facing an even bigger economic crisis than before the war. Shortages, banking disruptions and catastrophic inflation are going to linger for months if not years, stoking even more public resentment against the IRGC.
Of course, Israeli and American jets and drones could still have circled the skies over Iran, targeting the remnants of the regime. But to what end? Was there any indication that it would meaningfully alter the outcome?
Meanwhile, continued attacks on Gulf states and enduring disruption of shipping through Hormuz would eventually turn more people against Trump and Netanyahu – both of whom are facing important elections this fall.
And while Israeli PM was eager to continue the war, he has to ask himself honestly what more could have been achieved that still wasn't in the six weeks of joint air raids.
Getting Iran to agree to a ceasefire while imposing a crippling blockade on its ports was the final combo required to push reluctant Tehran to an off-ramp.
Hardline fanatics were eager for more martyrdom, believing that a global energy crisis and inflation across US petrol stations would hurt Trump in the midterms. But cooler heads appear to have prevailed, seeing how much more damage the war has wreaked on Iran.
The "deal" touted by Trump is rather meaningless in itself. While we don't know the specifics yet, it seems to only stipulate mutual withdrawal from blockading shipping in and around Hormuz.
The real talks regarding Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missiles and proxy groups are only meant to take place over subsequent two months, following the signing in Geneva this Friday.
In all likelihood they are not going to lead anywhere for many months more, if not years (or ever).
But, in the end, Trump got what he wanted – an official cessation of hostilities, after achieving most of what he set out to do (and at a minimal expense).
Iran will be licking wounds for many years, while its political elites are likely to start fighting each other, before some sort of a new order can emerge.
This means the country is unlikely to pose significant threats to anybody for a long time – far more, at least, than any negotiations have ever achieved.
It's not the best outcome that we all could have hoped for, but it is the best value for the expense.
