You have clearly more CEOing thoughtfulness. Fairness is defined by an individual at a point in time as the status quo shifts so does those “Feelings”. Those of us having done what we can at the moment not trying to cement a legacy understand that. Those that think the “deal is the greatest thing ever” try to maintain that transient moment.
I think of both in business as the value shows un anticipated additional or lack of value 6-12 months in, Fairness shifts. On the personal side how many divorced folks do you encounter that feel the same fairness after a few years when the individual realities shift.
We have a culture based on winners and losers, Why Americans Hate Soccer!
As to Kerry and Barry I am sure they had no BATNA and the low bar of success was a foot note in history that may be defendable today but not after the first mushroom cloud!

.
I will take both sides here.

There is fundamental fairness. Maybe not between the Israelis and the Arabs, granted.

Many times in 33+ years of CEOing I found myself putting my mind back to when I had originally made a deal when a subsequent issue was not discussed in whatever we signed,

I could do it easily. I constantly counsel the CEOs I work with that this is a characteristic of a successful CEO — the ability to conjure up the power balance at the instant of conception of the deal.

OTOH, many deals are “not fair’ and are what you can negotiate at that instant in time.

I am famous for saying: “In life, you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.”

I am absolutely certain that Pres Obama and Sec Kerry got the only deal they could get with the Iranians. This is guardrailed by the reality that neither of them is trained to be a negotiator and they had very low “legacy” standards and the Iranians are a slippery breed of fish.

What they didn’t consider is what a skillful negotiator would put on the table — a real possibility of walking away from a bad deal.

Trying to be objective, I think — given the actions of the Iranians since that deal was cast — no deal would have been a superior outcome than what they struck. That is a much longer discussion.

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

There is no fairness, this is something an individual feels and agrees with as YODA would say. Two parties can have an agreement, that is real. How “Fair” that agreement is, is only an opinion held at a point in time, open to change.

https://20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/how-an-idf-commander-with-just-one-tank-turned-back-a-syrian-column-in-the-yom-kippur-war/