Ben Debates Top Hostage Negotiator Chris Voss on Iran War

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: MeidasTouch Podcast – Ben Debates Top Hostage Negotiator Chris Voss on Iran War

Date: March 28, 2026
Guests: Chris Voss (hostage negotiation expert, author of "Never Split the Difference")
Hosts: Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas
Main Theme:
A deep-dive debate on the state of US-Iran negotiations amid a spiraling Middle East conflict—interrogating both the substance and style of negotiation happening under the Trump administration. Expert hostage negotiator Chris Voss joins to break down the psychological, strategic, and political dimensions of negotiation at the brink of war.

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the tense, ambiguous negotiation landscape between the United States and Iran in the wake of US military posturing and shifting public statements from both governments. Ben Meiselas invites Chris Voss to analyze the current diplomatic deadlock, the public contradictions, and what genuine negotiation requires when kinetic conflict looms large. The discussion explores the meaning of negotiation, the pitfalls of public bravado, the psychology of adversaries, and whether recent moves constitute progress or empower bad actors.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Mixed Messaging and Media Manipulation (00:58–06:10)

• Ben outlines the confusion generated by conflicting US and Iranian public pronouncements:
  • Trump threatens destruction if Iran doesn’t open the Strait of Hormuz (00:58).
  • 24 hours later, Trump lauds “productive conversations” and halts strikes (01:28).
  • Iran’s Foreign Minister denies talks: “The fact that they are now talking about negotiations in the first place is an admission of defeat...No negotiations have taken place.” (02:18)
  • Trump claims a total US victory, contradicts earlier stories of Iranian resistance.
• Quote: “Many foreign ministers in the region have contacted Tehran, and Iran's stance has been principled and firm. This war clarified many facts...If the US has bases in your Arab nation countries, it only makes you a target.” – Abbas Aragchi, Iranian FM [~03:30]

2. Chris Voss on What Negotiation Really Means (06:10–09:08)

• Chris Voss: Both sides' media statements are performative, aimed at their domestic and allied audiences rather than each other.
• Actual discourse is happening through intermediaries (notably Pakistan), but public stances remain “face-saving” denials or misrepresentations.
• Quote: “You know, one side is calling it negotiations, the other side saying, well, we're talking, we're not negotiating...these are face saving characterizations in public.” – Chris Voss (06:10)
• Negotiation’s core is understanding what deeply matters to the “other side”; it’s less about fast-talking and more about listening and uncovering the unspoken motivators—the “black swan” unknowns.

3. Negotiation Theory Applied to Geopolitics (09:08–13:06)

• Ben raises the problem of threats and arbitrary deadlines: “Do not set arbitrary deadlines that you can't meet against yourself.” (09:08)
• Chris highlights the central importance of autonomy:
  • “Nobody likes to be forced to the table...Autonomy is more important than survival.” – Chris Voss (08:14)
• Using force or public ultimatums removes autonomy, making productive negotiations less likely.
• Ben: Ongoing violence undermines trust (“every time you say you’re negotiating with us, you then kill somebody or you bomb. So how can we even start the negotiations?” 10:28).

4. Pitfalls of Mediation and the Illusion of Progress (10:54–14:07)

• Oman’s foreign minister mediates, but subsequent war nullifies progress.
• Chris: Mediators are prone to being “suckered” by insincere parties; “I don't put a lot of stock in what a mediator's assessment...If mediators were phenomenal at settling things, then everything would be settled by mediators.” (11:20)
• Ben queries the real substance of agreements on uranium enrichment—the reality diverges from press reports, and both sides seem to maintain hardline positions despite proclamations of progress.

5. The Impact of Sanctions and Economic Incentives (14:07–15:42)

• Ben: The removal of oil sanctions helps Iran and Russia amass billions, undermining the premise of punitive sanctions.
• Chris: Trump’s new approach—seeking “collaboration” instead of regime change—marks a notable departure from US tradition, for better or worse.
  • “This is the first American president...hasn't demanded a change of government to become democracy. And that's actually refreshing.” (14:40)

6. The Moral Limits and Paradoxes of “Collaboration” (15:42–17:15)

• Ben challenges the value-neutral, transactional approach: “Don’t you have to talk about values and principles in any negotiation, and not just the transactional outcome?” (16:04)
• Raises concern that “collaborating” with regimes that violate human rights can lead to outcomes comparable to Venezuela—where “the top torturer has become the defense minister.” (16:12)

7. When No Deal Is Possible: Recognizing Exploitation (17:15–21:12)

• Chris Voss: Some opponents (“7 percenters”) will never sign a good-faith deal; their aim is endless exploitation.
• “In any given negotiation, there are three kinds of negotiation: The deals you should make, the deals you shouldn't make, and the deals that you're never going to make.” (17:39)
• Ben: “I could do 100% negotiations if I just gave the other side...a deal that was mutually beneficial.”
• Chris: “Not true, not true...As soon as you give them what they asked for, their response is...that was a down payment.” (21:12)

8. Broader Implications & American Dissatisfaction (23:05–24:39)

• Ben: Trump is undermining the post-WWII order and making America weaker.
  • Notable quote: “I just think the American people are suffering...living paycheck to paycheck. We’re out there struggling. Why are we in this war? Why is there all this chaos?” (23:13–24:28)
• Chris: These are all fair, difficult questions—gaining perspective is a struggle, but they must be asked (24:28).

9. Negotiation Principles: Summing Up (24:39–25:16)

• Ben thanks Chris: “Truly thinking about negotiation, not as violence and beating you and destroying you and crushing you, but that you can gain tactical advantage by listening, hearing other sides, and trying to forge a middle ground.” (24:39)
• Chris reciprocates appreciation for the substantive, high-level debate (25:16).

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Chris Voss (on negotiation psychology):
  “Autonomy is more important than survival.” (08:14)

• Ben (on the danger of deadlines and threats):
  “Setting deadlines against yourself that you ultimately can't meet...I always think that's a problem in a negotiation...” (09:08)

• Chris Voss (on the illusion of mediation progress):
  “Mediators are famous for being suckered...if mediators were phenomenal at settling things, then everything would be settled by mediators.” (11:20)

• Chris Voss (on unrepentant adversaries):
  “As soon as you give them what they asked for, their response is...that was a down payment. We weren't asking for that to settle the deal; we were asking that just as a beginning.” (21:12)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:58–04:30 – Ben lays out US/Iran statements and confusion
• 05:05–06:10 – Ben introduces Chris Voss; negotiation stakes
• 06:10–09:08 – Chris discusses media messaging and negotiation psychology
• 09:08–11:20 – Ben and Chris on deadlines, threats, and autonomy
• 11:20–14:07 – Mediation, illusions of progress, dispute over substance
• 14:07–15:42 – Sanctions, economic incentives, Trump’s approach
• 16:04–17:15 – Ben presses on moral consequences of pure “collaboration”
• 17:15–21:12 – Recognizing when deals are (im)possible
• 23:05–24:39 – Ben on Trump, alliances, and American distress
• 24:39–25:16 – Closing thoughts and episode wrap

---

Overall Tone & Takeaways

The episode delivers a rich, nuanced debate: Ben’s critical, often emotional line of questioning meets Chris Voss’s dry, pragmatic expertise. The conversation avoids partisanship for its own sake, instead rooting the discussion in real-world negotiation dilemmas—how threats, compromised trust, and the psychology of adversaries can play out disastrously in geopolitics.
Listeners come away with deeper insight into not just the facts of US-Iran relations circa 2026, but the nature of negotiation under extreme stress, and how national leaders could benefit from thinking a little more like hostage negotiators—listening, probing for unknowns, and knowing that sometimes, no deal is better than a bad one.

Transcript

[A]

Some days you want a little extra oomph to your usual look, whether that's lashes for days with the Viral Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara or awakening your eyes with a lasting lift and soft color with the brilliant eye brightener. Thrive Cosmetics is your go to when you want to amplify your everyday look. Whether you want a simple just got to get out of the door routine or full glam, you'll always look and feel like the best version of yourself with Thrive Cosmetics. The plus every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean, skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it. And for every product purchased, Thrive Cosmetics donates to help communities thrive. So every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're helping communities you care about too. Amplify your everyday go to thrivecosmetics.com shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics C A U S E M E t I c s.com

[B]

shine26 are negotiations happening with Iran? Are they not happening with Iran? It seems like any every 24 to 48 hours we're getting different messaging contradictions. On the one hand, you'll have a Post like this March 22, 2026 From Donald Trump's social media account. If Iran doesn't fully open without threat the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various power plants, starting with the biggest one. First, thank you for your attention to this matter. 24 hours later, right before the markets open in all caps, you get the following message A I am pleased to report that the United States of America and the country of Iran have had over the last two days very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. Based on the tenor and tone of these in depth, detailed and constructive conversations, which will continue throughout the week, I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants. It should also be noted that back In June of 2025, Donald Trump had stated that Iran's nuclear facilities had been totally obliterated and any suggestion otherwise would be completely fake news. Now, Iran responded by saying this was Donald Trump trying to engage in market manipulation. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi says there are no negotiations. The fact that they are now talking about negotiations in the first place is an admission of defeat. Didn't they say unconditional surrender? So why are they now mobilizing their highest officials to negotiate with us at all. For countries we have identified as friends, we will allow them to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, including China, Russia, India, Iraq and Pakistan. But there is no reason to allow our enemies to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. And the enemy must learn a lesson. Never dare attack again. And the damages to the Iranian people must be fully compensated. International guarantees are not 100% guarantees. The intrinsic guarantee we have created ourself means no one dares go to war with the Iranian people anymore. So far, no negotiations have taken place. And a ceasefire without guarantees is a vicious cycle that. That repeats the war. Many foreign ministers in the region have contacted Tehran, and Iran's stance has been principled and firm. This war clarified many facts. If the US has bases in your Arab nation countries, it only makes you a target. Meanwhile, you have Donald Trump saying that the war has essentially been won. Here's a statement that Donald Trump made March 24, 2026. He says, it's over. We've won it. It's ours. Here, play this clip.

[C]

Well, I think we're going to end it. I can't tell you for sure. You know, I don't like to say this. We've won this. This war has been won. The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news. I mean, the New York Times. You read the New York Times, it's like, we're not winning a war where they have no navy and they have no air force and they have no nothing, and we literally have planes flying over Tehran.

[B]

Then you have Donald Trump saying the following on Iran. This was from a Cabinet meeting that was on Thursday. They are saying to the people. He's saying, the Iranians are saying this is a disaster. That's why they're talking to us. They're facing disaster. Let's play it.

[C]

The Iranian regime is now admitting to itself that they have been decisively defeated. They're saying to people, this is a disaster. They know. That's why they're talking to us. And they're only. They wouldn't talk otherwise, but they're talking to us because they've got a disaster on their hands. They're defeated.

[B]

I want to bring on a guy by the name of Chris Voss. Chris Voss writes one of the. Or has written one of the preeminent books on negotiation that's out there. Never split the difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on. And Chris, as we have thousands of Marine Expeditionary units now heading to the Strait of Hormuz as There talks about a ground invasion potentially of Carg island, the 86 Airborne Division being sent in. This is one of those moments where quite literally lives depend on this negotiation. I want to take your temperature and your approach I on the status of these negotiations generally and how you kind of view a framework of negotiations here through the prism. And I'll make this disclosure. I've read your book. Back in 2019, it was a book that I actually teach in my law school class as well. So I'm fascinated and interested to hear how your mind thinks about the framework for this negotiation.

[D]

Yeah, well, there's a lot of talk going on in the media on both sides. I mean they're both, both sides are very aware of the positioning of their conversation in the media is more to affect their supporters and their allies more than it is to affect the other side. That's why in the media most of the time, what's being said, it's hard to understand and hard to interpret because you don't know what ears they're trying to target at the moment. Most of the time it's not the years that you expect it to be. So it's really hard to get a firm read on this based on context without also knowing what's going on behind the scenes of conversations. You know, one side is calling it negotiations, the other side saying, well, we're talking, we're not negotiating. I mean, these are, these are matters of distinction, face saving characterizations in public. So without, without being told what's being said explicitly. Clearly there's conversations going on through Pakistan at this point in time as mediators relaying information. So there are conversations taking place and different sides are characterizing it in different ways. You're not 100% sure what ears are trying to hit with their statements.

[B]

Yeah, you know, Chris, one of the things that I think was a real revelation to me when I read your negotiating book though, that negotiation, despite it being often portrayed on TV as a lot of fast talking people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, is a lot more about listening, gathering data, assessing the situation, feeling each other out, trying to find the known unknowns. And ultimately why your group is called the Black Swan group is these unknown unknowns that are out there, which if you could really identify those, so your framework I think could apply here. Can you talk about the framework of thinking about negotiations and, and data gathering in situations like this or in hostage crises in general?

[D]

Yeah, well, you try to find out what really deep down inside matters to the other side. What are the core Values. The real issue in many cases is autonomy. Nobody likes to be forced to the table. They like to feel like that they made a choice to be there. Autonomy is actually more important than survival. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our hypothesis that survival was number one with Maslow isn't 100% accurate. And what I usually ask people is, name a civilization in the history of mankind that's been content in slavery. You can't find one. The United States is a country, give me liberty or give me death. We didn't invent that phrase or that attitude. But what that tells you is autonomy is more important than survival. And at the end of the day, people are going to really make decisions whether or not they feel they were autonomous in that decision or whether or not they were feel forced into it.

[B]

And that's kind of the concern that I have amongst a lot of other concerns in the negotiations where you have somebody like Pete Hegseth saying, we negotiate with bombs. And then one of the things you always talk about in your book, Chris, is this idea of do not set arbitrary deadlines that you can't meet against yourself. So when you have the threat of force and then you say, we're gonna bomb the hell out of you. I mean, that's the language that Hegseth uses. We're gonna bomb the hell out of you. We're gonna. Whatever. We're gonna do it right away. And then, you know, you have this line where we're actually. I mean, what did Trump say? He said, I wanna control the Strait of Hormuz with the Ayatollah, and we can do it together as a joint venture. And you could say that's just a lot of noise. And that's part of the, the, the. The cloud and specter of these negotiations. But setting deadlines against yourself that you ultimately can't meet, I always think that's a problem in a negotiation, if that's actually what's happening. And then removing the autonomy from the other side in the negotiation by saying, hey, we want to talk to you, but we're also about to kill you.

[D]

And.

[B]

And we're planning on killing you. And then, you know, this guy Ali Lara Johnny, who was one of the people we were purportedly talking. We just, you know, US and Israel killed the guy. So I guess the Iranian perspective on a lot of this, though, is, is every time you say you're negotiating with us, you then kill somebody or you bomb. So how can we even start the negotiations? And then finally, Chris, you have the Oman foreign minister who Was the handpicked mediator.

[D]

Right.

[B]

We, there's a lot of noise, as you say, from the outset, true. But there was a guy that we hand picked, the Oman foreign minister who went on CBS before this war started and said, hey, we had a productive conversation. We need to iron out the technical details on Monday. And then the war starts and the guy's like, from Oman. What, what happened? I mean, we thought we had a deal. And that doesn't, does that complicate the negotiation?

[D]

Well, it does if you, if you see all that noise. And so to back up a little bit, a hostage negotiator, I mean, when, when I got a guy inside of a bank, I still got a SWAT team on the outside. Now I'm not SWAT team is part of the negotiating team. Now we're not going to go to violence first, but at some point in time there are minor incremental things to be done to remind the other side that, you know, they can't, they can't toy with you, they can't lengthen this out, manipulate you for from now till eternity. Which is kind of what the Iranians are famous for doing, you know, half measures and agreements that they don't intend to comply with. And a mediator gets in the middle of mediators ego, gets more invested in getting some kind of deal as opposed to a deal that's going to be workable and they can be, they can be faked out by somebody that, who says, well, I'll try. Well, media says, oh, we get, you know, we're close to a deal. The other side said I'll try. Well, I'll try means I have no intention of complying. I'm just gonna, I'm gonna fake agree. And mediators are famous for being suckered by that. So I don't put, I don't put a lot of stock in what a mediator's assessment in any negotiation, that if mediators were phenomenal at settling things, then everything would be settled by mediators.

[B]

Right. Although right now it does seem that the primary objective is to open the Strait of Hormuz. Right? That's the main, not regime change anymore. To enter into an agreement where Iran would agree to not enrich its uranium, which was apparently agreed to at that mediation.

[D]

But now I doubt that that was ever actually agreed to by the Iranians. And the Iranians made it quite clear to Wyckoff in a face to face meeting that they felt that they had the right to enrich uranium from now until the end of time. So regardless of what the media said the Iranians never said that in face to face negotiations.

[B]

I mean, well, that's also assuming that Witkoff told the truth about that. Because all I know is that the foreign minister said that that's not the case. And then the British national security adviser who was also in the room said that he was surprised that there, I mean, if you don't believe the Oman foreign minister. Sure. But wasn't there a British national security advisor in the room who also says that Witkoff was not being fully honest as well, you know, in the room? But I guess one of the broader points though is we've also now removed the sanctions on Iranian oil and Russian oil from this war. So.

[D]

Right.

[B]

They've made billions of dollars. Like is that rewarding them? And they go, wow, this is the first time that we've got sanctions removed. We're making billions of dollars. If we were critical of Obama's deal, say because $1.4 billion flew to Iran in, in response to also having, you know, oversight. Well, now Iran gets to sell all of this oil that it wasn't able to sell before and now the US as well, they were selling it anyway. But then what's the point of sanctions in general if that's, if that's the case?

[D]

Yeah, well, I mean, I think the one thing that everybody continues to miss here, which is different about this American president is he's just interested in collaboration. He doesn't really care who's in charge on the other side as long as you collaborate in the collaboration is a two way street. Now. They're not. You notice he's not calling for democratic elections in Iran and he's trying to get rid of, he's trying to leave and attack the people that want to collaborate with not just the United States, but with the rest of the world. I mean, opening the Straits of Hormuz in collaboration with the Iranians. He's constantly trying to indicate, look, just collaborate fairly across the board and it'll be a relatively easy life. This is the first American president that anytime that we've ever gotten into a conflict with another country hasn't demanded a change of government to become democracy. And that's actually refreshing. He's, he's taken an unusual approach of collaboration separate from what form of government you have.

[B]

You think that's a good thing whether

[D]

or not they, we force democracy on somebody? We haven't had any success forcing democracy on anybody.

[B]

No, I mean, to, to give the example of hostage negotiations. Right?

[D]

Yeah. Okay.

[B]

You know, hostage negotiations.

[D]

There's that rumor. Yes.

[B]

So isn't what Trump's doing would basically be like if you and the hostage taker, rather than coming up with a plan to release the hostages, you said, you know what, let's do some collaboration. I'm going to collaborate with you, the hostage taker. Let's take the hostages together, let's make a ton of money, and I'll become the hostage taker with you, and we'll sell the hostages out. And then, you know, all of our friends and those families that want the hostages released will. Will. We're the United States, we're the FBI, and we're the hostage taker. If you were able to get a million bucks for it, imagine what we could do together. We'll get 20 million bucks for those hostages. So do. Don't you have to, though, talk about values and principles in any negotiation rather than just the transactional outcome? Because then the hostage negotiator and the hostage taker could collaborate. Isn't that what happened in Venezuela with Trump and Dely Rodriguez? And now the top torturer has become the defense minister there? Is that a good outcome? And I mean, it's a resolution. But is that an outcome that we wanted?

[D]

Well, I mean, those are great questions, and it's worth asking that and wondering whether or not that's the outcome. So to go back to the hostage example, like if I'm talking to a guy inside a bank, my first thing on collaboration is I want you to live. If we can both agree on a collaboration that you live, then let's work our way back to where we are now and then so that everybody lives. That's the real collaboration from a hostage negotiator. Now, the bad guy on the inside may have no desire to live. I can't change that. We actually call high risk indicators. Gary Nestner, my boss, came up with with these indicators. Or the person on the other side is never going to make the deal. In the Black Swan group, we call them 7 percenters. Why do we say 7 percenters? Because hostage negotiators are successful 93% of the time, which means 7% of the deal is never going to happen. And in any given negotiation, there are three kinds of negotiation. The deals you should make, the deals you shouldn't make, and the deals that you're never going to make. And your first job is to try to sort out which of those three bucket you're in. If the other side's never going to make a deal, no matter what kind of magic wands I have, I got to be able to recognize ahead of time that it's never going to happen. Then I have to reassess the situation. So the first part, the second part I'd like to talk about. And when you mentioned Venezuela, let's compare Venezuela to Iraq. The problem with taking out an entire regime is that the country falls into chaos, and Iraq falls into chaos and drags the vast majority of the Sunni Middle east down with it. And we get isis, which is one of the worst things. We thought Al Qaeda was bad and ISIS was even worse. So the, and the big mistake with the American government at that point in time is we decided that the de ba' athification of Iraq, we had to take out all of their politicians, all of their bureaucrats, their entire government structure. And that became a black hole that the Middle east hasn't still fully come back out of. So the avoidance of these black holes of anarchy and chaos and murder and bloodletting without end, which is still what's going on in different parts of the Middle east, avoiding that in Venezuela is probably a good idea, right?

[B]

If, though, the hostage taker was told, you know what? You get to stay in the bank. I mean, imagine if you said, here's what we're going to do. You stay in the bank, we're going to make money together. You keep the hostages, we sell the hostage.

[D]

I didn't go with it. Sorry, brother.

[B]

We take the hostage. I mean, that's, you know, that's. Look, doing the other work is very hard. And it almost raises the question, though, whether you talk about Iraq or Iran or Venezuela or anywhere. And I think this is the broader question, and it's not necessarily a negotiation question, but I think we're seeing it at home. Should we even be doing this stuff in the first place? And if ultimately the whole goal of spending billions of taxpayer dollars is to basically take out one ayatollah and put in another ayatollah who's more extreme, and they now control the straight of Hormuz. Yes, we did a deal, right? It was the negotiate. Your 93% number. I could do 100% negotiations if I just gave the other side, you know, a deal that was mutually beneficial.

[D]

Actually, not true, not true. You can't. And that was a hard thing that I learned in negotiations was the guy is never going to make a deal and is never going to give up exploiting you. As soon as you give them what they asked for, their response is, oh, you misunderstood. That was a down payment. We weren't asking for that to settle the deal, we were asking that just as a beginning, as an opening, that was simply a down payment. And that's a hard thing to recognize when you got somebody playing that kind of game on the other side, it's an endless game of exploitation from that side, the 7 percenters. You'll never make the deal because whatever you give them will never be enough.

[B]

Now, isn't that, though, precisely the problem with what Trump is doing with Putin? That every time, you know, Wyckoff, who you mention.

[D]

Let me ask you a question, Ben. If Trump cured cancer, would you say that he was wasting his time, he shouldn't have been doing that?

[B]

No, I would say it's great. But if he, But. But if he spread cancer, I would say it's bad.

[D]

But you know what? Ye. I think you're picking on him a little bit. I think it feels like that whatever he's done, you're going to find a way to say it's wrong.

[B]

No, I think that if there are positive accomplishments that are made, which ones

[D]

are name a positive accomplishment so far.

[B]

Look, I think that if there could actually be peace that could be brought to the Middle east, if there could be stability, that's there. I think that could be a good thing. I mean, right now, if Trump could actually, if gas prices were down. Gas prices.

[D]

Zero. Zero positive accomplishments.

[B]

Right now. I don't think there's any. I really don't. Right now. I can't name one in comparison to,

[D]

say, any American president since World War II, because that's when the Western, the West remade the Middle east at their whim.

[B]

Yeah. Donald Trump, in my view, in my humble view, right now, is destroying the post World War II framework. I think he's making America weaker. I think he's harming our alliances. I think, you know, the great nation of Canada being one of the first places that he attacks is very damaging. I believe in free trade agreements, generally speaking. I obviously want to make sure we protect our domestic businesses. But we've been pulled out a lot of, a lot of deals. Even a deal that he negotiated, I mean, he negotiates the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement. He says it's a stupid agreement. If you're going to negotiate your. If you're going to attack your own deals as stupid, you know, it's, it's a tough one for me. And I'll just say this before we go, although I'm happy to keep on talking, I just think the American people right now are very curious what the hell's going on. And I just think the American people are suffering and they're saying we can't afford things. We're psychologically tortured, living paycheck to paycheck. We're out there struggling. Why are we in this war? Why is there all this chaos? What's happening? You know, that's how I feel about it.

[D]

But these are fair questions. I mean, these are fair questions, and trying to gain a perspective on it is definitely a struggle. I think these are fair questions.

[B]

Well, I appreciate your book. I appreciate the book. I think it does give a great framework into thinking about things, data gathering and truly thinking about negotiation, not as violence and beating you and destroying you and crushing you, but that you can gain tactical advantage by listening, hearing other sides and trying to forge a middle ground. So the book is called Never split the difference, Negotiating as if your life depends on it by Chris Voss. And Chris is also the head of the Black Swan group. Thanks, Chris.

[D]

You've been very kind. I appreciate the conversation.

[B]

I appreciate the conversation. It was good discussion. Come back everybody. Hit subscribe let's get to 7 million subscribers. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our [e-mail] you'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content Only [e-mail]. To realize the future America needs, we understand what's needed from us to face each threat head on. We've earned our place in the fight for our nation's future. We are Marines. We were made for this.

[D]

New to TikTok, you might be surprised. TikTok Shop is packed with a wide variety of products and unexpected discounts. Easy to browse, easy to find good value. Download TikTok now.

[E]

Craving the coffee flavor you love, but without the caffeine, Cachava's got you covered with their newest coffee flavor. This all in one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor crafted from premium decaffeinated Brazilian beans. Quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens and so much more. Whether you're craving that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual or as a nutrient packed reward to round out your afternoon, Cachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you. Plus, it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. And for the times you feel like switching it up, you've got seven flavors to choose from all with the highest quality ingredients. Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves. Go to kachava.com and use code news. New customers get 15% off their first order. That's K A C-H-A-V-A.com code news.