"Will have" refers to an event in the future that precedes some other event in the future. "By the time the police arrive, I will have hidden the evidence." At some point in the future the police will arrive. Before that time, but still after the present time, I will hide the evidence.
"Would have" refers to a past hypothetical. It is used when you want to say that an event didn't happen, but that in some alternate universe where conditions where different, it did happen. (Okay, that's an odd wording, but I'm struggling how to express the idea without using the words "would have". To say, "would have" refers to something that would have happened ..." probably doesn't help. :-) Like, "If Sally had passed the test, she would have gotten the job." Sally didn't pass the test and didn't get the job, but if she had passed the test, then she would have gotten the job. "Jack would have won a fair contest." Jack lost the contest, but if it had been fair, he would have won. (Or perhaps there never was any contest, but if there had been a fair one, he would have won. Depends on context.) The condition doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out in a simple IF/THEN construct. You could say, "Mr Smith died before I was born. I would have liked to have known such a man." In this case the condition is clear from the context: if our life-spans had overlapped. It could certainly be more subtle.
I'm struggling to think of any other use of "would have". If another poster here thinks of one, please feel free to shout it out.
You could not use "would have" instead of "will have" in the above paragraph, because (a) there is no condition on Jack selecting the living quarters, and (b) even if there was, "would have" is used for past events, not future events.
The use of "for" vs "of" in that example is hard to explain, and I think it's more of a question of style than correctness. It doesn't feel right say that any one thing is the goal, or even a goal "for" a person. That somehow says that the person is less important than the goal, whatever that goal may be. However, in your example you quote the goal "for" an activity. That works; the goal is the entire purpose of the activity. "Of" would work there too.
I'd like to point out something else about the phrase. To refer something as the goal of something or someone, that goal needs to be the primary purpose.
For instance, it is the goal of a teacher for the students to learn the material. However, it is a goal of Mrs. Brown (the teacher) for her students to learn. In other words, Mrs. Brown has other priorities too, she's not just a teacher. Perhaps she's a wife, mother and Scrabble player too. So the big difference here isn't the use of "for" vs "of", the important distinction is between "a" or "the".
Best Answer
I'm not sure you need a link explaining the full ins and outs of "would" in order to understand the answer to this question.
"Would" is (correctly) used in this sentence to express the fact that such a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution does not currently exist, or at the very least, one has not been agreed upon. (This is a great example by the way, since various situations in Iran are/have been very difficult to resolve!)
We shouldn't use "will" (which would describe a concrete future), in cases such as these, where an outcome is very dependent on many factors (or conditions).
"Would" is the English language's conditional form. "Conditional" indicates that an outcome expressed with "would" is only possible if certain "conditions" are met. Think of "would" as "the furthest future possible".
I hope that at least answers your specific question.
To read more on "would", first check out its primary definitions (which give you some nice examples). This article also helps you on other aspects of this modal verb (past habits etc), and this article may also be of interest.