Talk to your enemies: the case for negotiating with adversaries
September 29, 2026 · 20 min read
Jared Kushner on golden bridges and picking up the phone, Tulsi Gabbard on talking to adversaries, Musk on conspicuous kindness and Narendra Modi on dialogue all argue that engagement prevents wars. It challenges the idea that talking signals weakness.
The rules, numbers and steps worth keeping in front of you.
- Shared claim: talking to adversaries is strength, not weakness; none of the four rejects force.
- Jared Kushner: begin with trust and with the other side's real interests.
- Kushner: assume a leader's first goal is staying in power.
- Kushner: close the other side's escape routes, then offer a golden bridge they want to cross.
- Kushner: pick up the phone; back channels can open what official ones cannot.
- Kushner: separate issues that have been bundled together.
- Kushner: words are worth little without trust and power; a good deal with a bad partner is a bad deal.
- Tulsi Gabbard: war is justified only as a last resort, after diplomacy is exhausted.
- Gabbard: small gestures of respect in Iraq led locals to warn soldiers, and casualties fell.
- Gabbard: labeling dialogue as treason stops people asking basic questions in a crisis.
- Elon Musk: use visible kindness toward civilians; ask how many enemies each killing creates.
- Narendra Modi: no resolution on the battlefield; talks must include both parties.
- When two sides cannot talk directly, find a trusted, neutral broker (Kushner, Gabbard).
- Limits: talks can be used to buy time, and Modi's overtures to Pakistan did not bring peace.
This is the short form. The full insight has every expert's reasoning, their own words and the sources.