The Art of the Threat: What Negotiation Science Says When the Stakes Are Highest

Pax

April 11, 2026 · 16 min read

This is a departure for this series.

These posts usually stay close to the conversations that happen between two people across a kitchen table, between colleagues who can’t hear each other, between generations trying to bridge a gap. Communication at a human scale.

But the same principles don’t stop applying when the table gets bigger. And right now, the world is watching a set of negotiations play out at the highest possible stakes, in the most public possible forum, using tactics that negotiation researchers have studied for decades. Whatever your politics, the question is worth asking: does what we’re watching match what the research says actually works?

This isn’t about taking sides. It’s about taking the research seriously.

Two Schools, 3,000 Years Apart

For as long as people have been negotiating, two basic approaches have competed.

The first might be called the dominance school. Its intellectual lineage runs from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War (roughly 500 BCE, one of the most translated texts in history) through Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532, continuously in print for nearly 500 years) to Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal (1987, #1 New York Times bestseller) and Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power (1998, over 1.2 million copies in the US alone).

The core principles: think big, use leverage, fight back, project strength, treat negotiation as a zero-sum contest (one where any gain for one side is a loss for the other). Greene distills 3,000 years of power history into laws like “Crush your enemy totally.” Trump advocates what he calls “truthful hyperbole,” the idea that strategic exaggeration shapes perception in your favor. In this school, the strongest position wins, and restraint is weakness.

The second might be called the principled school. Its practices are just as old. The concept of “face” in East Asian diplomacy, consensus-building in indigenous council traditions, and the mutual concessions that produced the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (ending the Thirty Years’ War and establishing the modern system of sovereign states) all reflect interest-based thinking.

But the modern academic framework was formalized by Roger Fisher and William Ury in Getting to Yes (1981), developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project and now translated into 35 languages with 15 million copies sold. Their approach: separate the people from the problem, focus on interests rather than positions, invent options for mutual gain, and insist on objective criteria. Chris Voss, a former FBI lead kidnapping negotiator, built on this in Never Split the Difference (2016, over 5 million copies), arguing that tactical empathy, understanding the other side’s emotional reality, is more powerful than any threat. Michele Gelfand, a cross-cultural psychologist who has studied negotiation across dozens of cultures, has documented why the dominance approach systematically fails in international contexts where the parties expect ongoing interaction.

Both schools have intellectual weight. Both have adherents. But they do not have identical track records.

The Madman in the Room

The strongest argument for the dominance approach has a name: the madman theory.

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger explicitly tried to make Soviet and North Vietnamese leaders believe that Nixon was irrational and volatile, capable of anything, hoping they’d make concessions out of fear. In October 1969, the US military was ordered to full global war readiness, and eighteen nuclear-armed B-52 bombers flew patterns near the Soviet border for three consecutive days.

The logic is intuitive. If your adversary believes you might actually do the unthinkable, your threats carry weight they otherwise wouldn’t. Why soften your language? Why negotiate in private when a public display of resolve sends a clearer signal? Only someone unsure of their own position needs to whisper.

But the research is not encouraging. Political scientists Scott Sagan and Jeremi Suri called the madman theory “ineffective and dangerous.” Soviet leader Brezhnev didn’t understand what Nixon was trying to communicate with the bomber flights. The gambit failed to move the Soviets. Experimental research from Harvard’s Belfer Center found that perceived madness provides “limited advantages” in coercive bargaining but carries “significant domestic costs that potentially erode its efficacy.”

The critical finding: the madman pose only works if it is exceptional. It requires a backdrop of normalcy. Nixon appeared dangerous to adversaries precisely because the American system normally appeared controlled. When unpredictability becomes the brand rather than the exception, it stops being leverage. Adversaries don’t fear what they’ve learned to tune out.

What the Numbers Say

The broader research on coercive diplomacy, using threats to compel an adversary to change behavior, is even more sobering.

A US Air War College study found that coercive diplomacy succeeds roughly one-third of the time. The United States Institute of Peace reached a similar conclusion. And the failures aren’t benign. The 1941 US oil embargo against Japan was meant to compel withdrawal from China; instead, it convinced Japan that war was inevitable and provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor. The 1990 ultimatum to Iraq produced war when Saddam called the coalition’s bluff. Russia’s extreme demands toward Ukraine in 2022 produced the exact opposite of what Putin wanted: greater NATO solidarity, weapons shipments to Kyiv, and two new NATO members in Finland and Sweden.

Perhaps most importantly for anyone who cares about lasting results: agreements reached through coercion are more likely to be breached at the first opportunity. Compliance is shallow and requires constant renewal of the threat. The deal you force is not the deal that holds.

Gelfand’s analysis in Project Syndicate identifies the structural problem. The dominance approach is a winner-take-all style, designed for zero-sum contexts with one issue, one interaction, and no expected future relationship. But international diplomacy almost never looks like that. There are many issues on the table, there will be future interaction, and the relationship itself is a strategic asset. Using a one-shot tactic in an ongoing game is, as Gelfand puts it, “really mismatched with the context.”

Jeffrey Pfeffer at Stanford has pointed out that Greene’s “laws of power” are based on isolated historical anecdotes, not systematic research. The stories are compelling. The evidence base is thin. And the negotiation contexts that matter most, where both sides retain the ability to walk away or escalate, are the ones where domination tactics are most likely to backfire.

What Actually Worked: Three Presidents, Both Parties

If the dominance approach fails two-thirds of the time at the international level, what does success look like? The historical record is instructive, and it cuts across party lines.

Nixon and China (1972). The most anti-communist president in American history achieved what public threats never could: a fundamental reorientation of global power. He did it through secret back channels, routed through Pakistan and Romania, with Kissinger making two covert trips to Beijing before anyone knew talks were happening. No public ultimatums. No deadlines. Patient, strategic relationship-building that ended 23 years of hostility. The same Nixon who tried the madman theory with the Soviets and failed used the opposite approach with China and changed the world.

Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). This is often remembered as a triumph of toughness, and it was, but not in the way most people think. Kennedy combined public firmness (a naval quarantine — he deliberately avoided the word “blockade,” which is an act of war under international law) with private flexibility (a secret agreement, communicated through his brother Robert and Soviet ambassador Dobrynin, to remove American Jupiter missiles from Turkey). Each leader needed a way to back down without appearing weak, and they built each other an off-ramp. Kennedy’s restraint against military advisors who wanted airstrikes is the part of the story that saved the world.

Reagan and Gorbachev (1987). Reagan opened with an extreme position: the “zero option” — eliminating an entire class of nuclear missiles from Europe — that many considered a non-starter. But then he did something the dominance school doesn’t account for. He and Gorbachev exchanged 33 personal letters. They met at Geneva, then Reykjavik. They built something that looked, against all odds, like mutual respect. The result was the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty, with the most stringent verification provisions in the history of arms control. “Trust, but verify” became the formula: toughness on substance, genuine engagement on the relationship. Reagan didn’t abandon his principles. He found a counterpart who had his own reasons to make a deal, and he gave that counterpart room to take it.

The pattern across all three cases is consistent with what the research predicts. Public firmness establishes credibility. Private flexibility creates room for agreement. Back channels preserve face. And the leader who gives the other side an off-ramp gets more than the leader who tries to back them into a corner.

A Case Study in Real Time

As of this writing in April 2026, the world is watching a high-stakes negotiation unfold with few of these elements in place.

This piece isn’t the place for a full analysis of the conflict’s origins. For that context, thorough treatments are available from Britannica, Brookings, and the Council on Foreign Relations. But even a brief look at the negotiation dynamics reveals patterns the research predicts.

The first rule: know what everyone at the table wants

Fisher and Ury’s foundational insight is that effective negotiation requires understanding interests, not just positions. Positions are what people say they want. Interests are why they want it.

In this conflict, the United States, Israel, Iran, and multiple Gulf states each have stated objectives that overlap in some places and directly contradict in others. The US says it wants the Strait of Hormuz open (the narrow waterway through which roughly a quarter of the world’s oil flows) and Iran’s nuclear program dismantled. Israel’s stated goals include regime change. Iran wants sanctions lifted, security guarantees, and sovereignty over the Strait. Gulf states want Iran’s military capacity reduced but, as the Carnegie Endowment has noted, “did not seek a war that would undoubtedly put their interests in grave peril.”

Any negotiation researcher would flag the same problem: the parties on the same side don’t agree on what they’re negotiating for. Within hours of a ceasefire announcement, Israel mounted its largest attack on Lebanon, prompting Iran to warn the deal was at risk. A White House official told Axios: “Israel doesn’t hate the chaos. We do. We want stability.” When allies aren’t aligned on objectives, the adversary sees the cracks and the negotiation fractures from the inside.

And then there are the interests behind the interests. Leaders are people. They carry personal incentives, political pressures, legacy concerns, and ego into every room they enter. A leader who has staked their public identity on toughness may find it psychologically difficult to accept an off-ramp, even a good one. A leader who needs a political win at home may prioritize the appearance of victory over its substance. This is true of every leader at this table, and at most tables throughout history. Understanding what’s really driving a negotiation means asking: what does this person need, separate from what their country needs? And when those personal needs come into conflict with the national interest, who pays the price?

The second rule: your words are your strategy

The American president has set at least three public deadlines for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Each one passed without the threatened consequences. A two-week ceasefire was then announced. This pattern is precisely what researchers warn against. James Fearon at Stanford has shown that public ultimatums only build credibility when the leader follows through — every unfulfilled threat costs credibility with the audience watching. Repeated extensions teach the adversary that deadlines are negotiable and threats are rhetorical.

But the deeper problem isn’t the deadlines. It’s the language.

Social media posts have told Iranian leaders, in vulgar language, to reopen the Strait or “be living in Hell,” and warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Set aside the negotiation research for a moment. Read that sentence again. A sitting president told 90 million people that their entire civilization might be extinguished before morning. (A two-week ceasefire was subsequently announced, and whether the threats contributed to that outcome or other factors did is genuinely debatable. What is less debatable is the nature of the words themselves.)

One of two things is true. Either he didn’t mean it, in which case it’s a bluff, and the research on coercive diplomacy tells us exactly what happens next: the adversary learns to stop taking you seriously, resistance hardens, and face-saving off-ramps disappear. Or he did mean it, in which case the leader of the United States publicly threatened the destruction of an entire nation and its people, and 330 million Americans woke up to discover that those words were spoken on their behalf, in their name, without their permission.

Trump earned the loyalty of millions of Americans precisely because he says what he means without softening it. In an era of rehearsed talking points and focus-grouped non-answers, that directness is genuinely powerful. People don’t just tolerate his bluntness. They love it. They feel represented by a leader who refuses to hide behind diplomatic language. That quality is rare, and it matters. But there is a difference between refusing to sugarcoat and threatening to annihilate a civilization. If a leader’s supporters take him at his word, and his opponents take him at his word, then everyone should contend with what those words actually say.

Either way, the damage is not only strategic. It is human. Those words land on Iranian-Americans in their neighborhoods and workplaces. They land on every American living, traveling, or doing business in or with international communities. They land on children who are learning, from the most visible leader in the world, what it sounds like when power talks. And they land on the conscience of a country that has to decide whether this is what it wants to sound like.

The third rule: watch the outcomes

The Iranian people, who staged the largest protests since 1979 just weeks before the war began, are now rallying around a government they were ready to challenge. This is one of the most well-documented effects in political science: external military threats consolidate domestic support for the targeted regime. The war may be producing the opposite of the conditions needed for the internal change that both the US and Israel say they want.

Steven Cook at the Council on Foreign Relations: “There has been no regime change in Iran, the current leadership is not any less radical than their predecessors, the Iranians still have the ability to menace their neighbors, and Iran has leverage over the Strait of Hormuz when it did not before the war began.”

Meanwhile, the American public, including prominent voices in the president’s own coalition, has grown measurably uneasy. Gas prices have risen more than a dollar per gallon. Prominent conservative commentators have publicly urged restraint. Young voters drawn to promises of avoiding foreign entanglements are asking what “America First” means when America is engaged in a war that many of its own supporters didn’t want.

When a strategy’s outcomes contradict its stated objectives on multiple fronts simultaneously, the negotiation approach has failed on its own terms.

The Boring Stuff That Saves the World

Every successful negotiation in the historical record shares features that are, by design, undramatic.

Back channels. Face-saving off-ramps. Coalition-building that creates pressure without requiring any single leader to personally escalate. Understanding what the other side actually needs, not what they announce in public, but what they’d accept in private. Patience measured in months, not news cycles.

Nixon needed Pakistan and Romania to reach China. Kennedy needed his brother and a Soviet ambassador in a quiet room. Reagan needed 33 letters and the willingness to sit across from an adversary and see a human being.

None of these moments made headlines while they were happening. That was the point. The negotiations that work are the ones the public doesn’t see until they’re done.

It is worth hoping, and perhaps even plausible, that quieter and more strategic conversations are happening behind the scenes right now. A leader who wrote about negotiation forty years ago has had time to learn what works at the highest level, and experienced advisors may be guiding a more sophisticated approach than the public rhetoric suggests. But if back channels are doing the real work, the public threats are actively undermining them. Every ultimatum posted on social media narrows the other side’s room to maneuver. The hyperbole has a cost, even if the strategy behind it turns out to be smarter than it appears.

Gelfand has proposed that the US create a bipartisan Council of Negotiation Advisers, drawing on the research rather than instinct, to guide how presidents approach high-stakes deals. It sounds bureaucratic. It might also be the kind of structural safeguard that prevents a leader from threatening to extinguish a civilization on social media.

What This Has to Do with Your Saturday

If you’ve read this far, you might be wondering what any of this has to do with the conversations in your own life.

The same dynamics that play out between nations play out between people. The boss who manages through intimidation gets compliance, not commitment, and discovers it the day their best employee leaves without warning. The partner who issues ultimatums wins the argument and loses the relationship. The parent who threatens consequences they never enforce teaches their child that threats are noise.

And the same tactics that work at the highest stakes work at the smallest. Understanding what the other person actually needs, not just what they’re demanding. Giving them a way to change course without losing face. Being firm on what matters and flexible on how you get there. Listening before you prescribe.

The research doesn’t care about the size of the table. It cares about whether you’re trying to win the moment or build something that lasts.

But this goes beyond tactics. This whole series is built on a simple premise: words matter. Not as abstraction, but as cause and effect. The words you choose shape what happens next, in your relationships, in your workplace, in your family. That principle doesn’t stop being true when the speaker has a nuclear arsenal. If anything, the stakes make it more urgent, not less.

When leaders model aggression as strength and threats as communication, that language trickles into every room in the country. It shapes what kids think power sounds like. It moves the line on what counts as acceptable in an argument, a negotiation, a disagreement with a neighbor. The way a country’s leader talks is never just about the foreign policy outcome. It’s a statement about what that country values, and everyone who lives there has to carry it.

If 3,000 years of negotiation history teaches one thing, it might be this: the leader who gives the other side an exit gets more than the leader who backs them into a corner. The person who listens first speaks with more authority than the person who shouts first. And the deal that holds is never the one that was forced.

That’s true whether you’re negotiating a ceasefire or navigating a hard conversation with someone you love. The principles are the same. Only the stakes change.

Speak kindly. Listen closely. Paws often.

— Pax

Thanks for reading. If you'd like Pax delivered to your inbox, subscribe on Substack — new posts arrive there a day or two after they appear here.