The Threat Game
With all the rhetoric against Iran and recent news leaks about war plans, etc , it may be interesting to look at the “game” Bush and his gang are playing with Iran,. I wrote something about “Game Theory” a little while ago that may be useful for those interested in Mathematics of Games and how it gets applied in some real life situations. The “Threat Game” is another example of that.
Continue Reading...
Here is how the table of the game that describes the Bush’s strategy against Iran looks like:
At the first glance, it seems that US does better negotiating no matter what Iranian government does. If that is the “pure” dominant strategy of US, then Iran can choose to “Defy” and gain 5 points (Negotiate-Defy square). However, this is a non-zero-sum game and US can leverage the “threat of war” shown in the “War” column to force a negotiated settlement and change the result of the game to the “Negotiate-Comply” square and maximize its gain (10 points).
For this strategy to work, a few conditions must be present:
1. A man of words and not of deeds, is like a garden full of weeds!
A real possibility of acting on the threat must be there; otherwise, it will not be taken seriously. For example, in that table, if the probability of war is only 10%, you can show with calculation that it will not work (How?).
2. Great boast, and small roast?!
The one who threatens must show that he has the means to act on his threat, for example, the threat of war without a powerful army is useless.
3. Better an eye sore, than all blind!
The threat must carry a sever penalty if it is to come true for the threatened side (shown by the cost of -50 in the War-Defy square); otherwise, it will not be effective
4. Those who live in glass houses, do not throw stones.
The threat must not carry a significant cost for the side making the threat, if it is to come true; otherwise, it will not be effective (shown by the cost of -10 in the War-Defy square).
5. Carrots and Sticks!
To give more incentive for the “Comply” option, the threat maker can give some benefit to the other side in the “Comply-Negotiate” square (change 0 to, say, +3).
The policy of US towards Iran has almost all the elements of the “Threat Game”. Bush and his gang have shown through their rhetoric and also through so-called “leaks” about military plans against Iran (which were probably intentional), etc, that the “War” is a real possibility (number 1). They have the military with devastating fire power (number 2 and 3). Right now, they only show Stick and no Carrot, but they are counting on Europeans to hold the Carrot (Number 5). Their only weakness is number 4. Iraq situation showed that War in this region is costly for the US, and it is only going to be worse against Iran. So, it is absolutely crucial for US to succeed in Iraq, if it wants to get the desired outcome from the “threat game”.
Interestingly, Iran is also playing this game by bringing in two factions, one with aggressive postures that wants nothing short of the defeat of the “Great Satan” in the battlefield, and the other one which is showing flexibility and is after a compromise. They also take advantage of US weakness in Iraq and play their version of Stick and Carrot game. However, they ultimately want to get to a negotiated settlement but with as much gains as they can, and that is the most likely outcome of this game.
For Iranian people, however, it is a lose-lose situation. Their only way out is to take the matters in their own hand and bring about sweeping democratic change without a foreign intervention. It is quite a tall order, given the brutality of the regime, and narrow minded approach of the US; but, the Iraq experience should have shown Iranians that they could not rely on an invasion to bring about the changes they desperately seek. The recent activities around the “Call for Referendum” may be the catalyst to finally unite the democratic forces and create a viable movement to carry out this change.
Math Homework: “Revolution Game” – Create a table for a game where the players are People and their Government. The two options for people is “Revolt” and “Surrender”, and for the government is “Reform” and “Crack-down”. Put in the numbers and find out under what conditions people’s revolt will bear fruit!!
p.s. This article by Ervand Abrahamian predicts a higher probability for war.
Continue Reading...
Here is how the table of the game that describes the Bush’s strategy against Iran looks like:
| US | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| War | Negotiate | ||
| Iran | Defy | (-50,-10) | (5,-5) |
| Comply | (-10,-5) | (0,10) | |
At the first glance, it seems that US does better negotiating no matter what Iranian government does. If that is the “pure” dominant strategy of US, then Iran can choose to “Defy” and gain 5 points (Negotiate-Defy square). However, this is a non-zero-sum game and US can leverage the “threat of war” shown in the “War” column to force a negotiated settlement and change the result of the game to the “Negotiate-Comply” square and maximize its gain (10 points).
For this strategy to work, a few conditions must be present:
1. A man of words and not of deeds, is like a garden full of weeds!
A real possibility of acting on the threat must be there; otherwise, it will not be taken seriously. For example, in that table, if the probability of war is only 10%, you can show with calculation that it will not work (How?).
2. Great boast, and small roast?!
The one who threatens must show that he has the means to act on his threat, for example, the threat of war without a powerful army is useless.
3. Better an eye sore, than all blind!
The threat must carry a sever penalty if it is to come true for the threatened side (shown by the cost of -50 in the War-Defy square); otherwise, it will not be effective
4. Those who live in glass houses, do not throw stones.
The threat must not carry a significant cost for the side making the threat, if it is to come true; otherwise, it will not be effective (shown by the cost of -10 in the War-Defy square).
5. Carrots and Sticks!
To give more incentive for the “Comply” option, the threat maker can give some benefit to the other side in the “Comply-Negotiate” square (change 0 to, say, +3).
The policy of US towards Iran has almost all the elements of the “Threat Game”. Bush and his gang have shown through their rhetoric and also through so-called “leaks” about military plans against Iran (which were probably intentional), etc, that the “War” is a real possibility (number 1). They have the military with devastating fire power (number 2 and 3). Right now, they only show Stick and no Carrot, but they are counting on Europeans to hold the Carrot (Number 5). Their only weakness is number 4. Iraq situation showed that War in this region is costly for the US, and it is only going to be worse against Iran. So, it is absolutely crucial for US to succeed in Iraq, if it wants to get the desired outcome from the “threat game”.
Interestingly, Iran is also playing this game by bringing in two factions, one with aggressive postures that wants nothing short of the defeat of the “Great Satan” in the battlefield, and the other one which is showing flexibility and is after a compromise. They also take advantage of US weakness in Iraq and play their version of Stick and Carrot game. However, they ultimately want to get to a negotiated settlement but with as much gains as they can, and that is the most likely outcome of this game.
For Iranian people, however, it is a lose-lose situation. Their only way out is to take the matters in their own hand and bring about sweeping democratic change without a foreign intervention. It is quite a tall order, given the brutality of the regime, and narrow minded approach of the US; but, the Iraq experience should have shown Iranians that they could not rely on an invasion to bring about the changes they desperately seek. The recent activities around the “Call for Referendum” may be the catalyst to finally unite the democratic forces and create a viable movement to carry out this change.
Math Homework: “Revolution Game” – Create a table for a game where the players are People and their Government. The two options for people is “Revolt” and “Surrender”, and for the government is “Reform” and “Crack-down”. Put in the numbers and find out under what conditions people’s revolt will bear fruit!!
p.s. This article by Ervand Abrahamian predicts a higher probability for war.
posted by Mehrdad at
8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home