Tulsi Gabbard and the Courage to Speak: Why Diplomacy is Not a Sin

Diplomacy Never Works—Until It Does

Fiction has a peculiar way of speaking the truth that real-world politics often refuses to admit. In the season finale of The Diplomat, Hal Wyler delivers a strikingly raw monologue about the maddening, soul-crushing, yet absolutely necessary practice of diplomacy. His words ring with a hard-earned cynicism: diplomacy is a slog, an exercise in endless repetition, a near-certain failure—until, suddenly, it isn’t. Until it cracks open the door to peace. This is not a utopian fantasy; it is the brutal reality of statecraft. And it is precisely why Tulsi Gabbard’s willingness to talk to Bashar al-Assad should be seen not as a betrayal, but as a statesman’s burden, an act of courage rather than complicity.

The Obsession with "Legitimacy"

One of the laziest arguments against diplomatic engagement is the claim that talking to an adversary "legitimizes" them. This is absurd on its face. The United States has spent decades talking to tyrants, murderers, and despots—from Stalin to Mao, from Gaddafi to the Ayatollahs in Iran. At no point did a handshake or a summit absolve these figures of their crimes. The very premise of diplomacy assumes that the people we negotiate with are often the very ones we despise.

If anything, refusing to engage can be more dangerous. History shows that a lack of dialogue does not weaken regimes; it hardens them. The Soviets did not crumble because we ignored them—they fell because we engaged, outmaneuvered, and ultimately outlasted them. Refusing to speak to Assad would not have hastened his downfall, nor would it have prevented his actions. But talking to him, hearing his position, and understanding the layers of Syrian geopolitics might have given the U.S. a far clearer roadmap to extricating itself from yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

Tulsi Gabbard’s Real Sin: Questioning the Narrative

Tulsi Gabbard’s 2017 trip to Syria drew ire from both neoconservatives and interventionist Democrats—not because she met with Assad, but because she refused to blindly accept the establishment’s pre-approved version of events regarding chemical weapons attacks. Gabbard’s skepticism about U.S. intelligence claims on the 2017 Khan Shaykhun attack was not a fringe conspiracy theory—it was a prudent hesitation, grounded in the undeniable history of American foreign policy missteps.

Her critics demanded blind faith in an intelligence apparatus that, within living memory, manufactured the case for the Iraq War with non-existent WMDs. They insisted that the mere act of questioning the official narrative amounted to siding with Assad, an intellectually dishonest smear designed to silence dissent. Yet, years later, whistleblowers from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) raised serious doubts about the way reports on the Douma chemical attack were manipulated. Was Gabbard still out of line for asking questions? Or was she simply ahead of the curve?

The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage

Gabbard was attacked as an "Assad apologist" for advocating diplomacy, while the same establishment elites championed engagement with regimes no less brutal. Obama was celebrated for reopening diplomatic channels with Cuba and Iran. Trump was both vilified and praised for his attempts to negotiate with Kim Jong Un. Nixon’s visit to China was hailed as a masterstroke of foreign policy, despite Mao’s staggering record of mass murder.

The difference? Gabbard’s foreign policy stance rejects the interventionist framework that Washington clings to like a security blanket. Her refusal to sign on to the latest regime-change operation threatened the interests of the military-industrial complex and the bipartisan war caucus that sees every conflict as an opportunity for American intervention.

Why Gabbard Should Be Confirmed

If Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation hearings are grueling affairs, it is because she represents a break from the reckless interventionism that has defined U.S. foreign policy for decades. She should be confirmed precisely because she is willing to ask the questions that others are too cowardly to pose. She understands that diplomacy is not about rewarding enemies, but about preventing endless cycles of war.

We did not have to like Assad. We did not have to absolve him. But if we are to extract ourselves from the Middle East’s endless wars, we have to understand the battlefield—and that means talking to everyone. The refusal to do so is not strength; it is self-imposed ignorance.

Diplomacy never works—until it does. And when it does, it saves lives. That alone should be reason enough to confirm Tulsi Gabbard.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.