Two approaches in policymaking are relevant to analyzing terrorism termination processes: framing and gaming. The framing approach is based on cognitive judgment designed for understanding the meaning of the confl ict and labeling the actions of one’s opponent; the gaming approach is based on calculating instrumental moves against an opponent to maximize one’s gains. The two approaches derive from different assumptions and premises. Payne (1982) calls them the perceptual and cost-benefi t frameworks. Kahneman and Tversky (1983) note the tension between the two in the study of judgment and choice. The fi rst emphasizes problem construction and formulation. The second emphasizes the use of strategies to acquire and evaluate information. Gonos (1977) views the frame approach as fi xed pictures of understandings to provide working principles for action. Cognitive framing emphasizes perceptions arising from norms, expectations, or operating rules of practical discourse (March and Olson 1998; Risse 2000; Wendt 1999). Strategic bargaining is a rational choice perspective focused on parties’ interests and preferences in the process of interaction.