Isreal... 3rd party movements distort bilateral gameplay. Prisoner's Dilemma requires an isolation of the players.
- Prisoner's Dilemma 𝑢𝑖=𝑓(my action,your action)
- Triadic Strategic System 𝑢𝑖=𝑓(my action,your action,third party’s response)
We still don't know the Transformation Preference, given statements about a lack of cooperation w/ Isreal in terms of certain military moves.
I would call this a Political Game of Influence where the cooperation utility is either manufacturered, enforced or induced by strategic movement. (Russia and Chinese information sharing creates an assymetry of knowledge.)
*Now you can add a 4th party in an endogenous sense with the calls for the Iranian public to enter the "gameplay". (Social movements with their own agenda and influence in outcome.)
The piece that comes to mind for me is not only the willingness of Iran to escalate, but its ability to do so. It has planned for this war for years, and created decentralized structures that enable them to do so, using strategies of asymmetrical warfare, for far more than a great power expected. This means not only resources are critical, but also the ways in which resources are deployed. Yes, if complicates the game, but it is the critical piece that enables Iran to sustain such a game on as equal terms with the USA as it has.
Im not sure what winning looks like anymore in this conflict. It is slightly worsen by the fact that western actions is what allowed Iran's current government to rise up in the first place. My biggest concern is the Iranian people being denied their agency. Whether it is it's own government or western and arab powers.
There is no outcome where the citizens gain control. The Iranian Republic Guard knows that ceding control means being punished for their "gameplay". Without an occupying force? The payoff is a stalemate in the near-term and a reversion to norm within months.
Iran is a 3 party game internally - citizens, IRG, Theocracy.
Isreal... 3rd party movements distort bilateral gameplay. Prisoner's Dilemma requires an isolation of the players.
- Prisoner's Dilemma 𝑢𝑖=𝑓(my action,your action)
- Triadic Strategic System 𝑢𝑖=𝑓(my action,your action,third party’s response)
We still don't know the Transformation Preference, given statements about a lack of cooperation w/ Isreal in terms of certain military moves.
I would call this a Political Game of Influence where the cooperation utility is either manufacturered, enforced or induced by strategic movement. (Russia and Chinese information sharing creates an assymetry of knowledge.)
*Now you can add a 4th party in an endogenous sense with the calls for the Iranian public to enter the "gameplay". (Social movements with their own agenda and influence in outcome.)
The piece that comes to mind for me is not only the willingness of Iran to escalate, but its ability to do so. It has planned for this war for years, and created decentralized structures that enable them to do so, using strategies of asymmetrical warfare, for far more than a great power expected. This means not only resources are critical, but also the ways in which resources are deployed. Yes, if complicates the game, but it is the critical piece that enables Iran to sustain such a game on as equal terms with the USA as it has.
Im not sure what winning looks like anymore in this conflict. It is slightly worsen by the fact that western actions is what allowed Iran's current government to rise up in the first place. My biggest concern is the Iranian people being denied their agency. Whether it is it's own government or western and arab powers.
There is no outcome where the citizens gain control. The Iranian Republic Guard knows that ceding control means being punished for their "gameplay". Without an occupying force? The payoff is a stalemate in the near-term and a reversion to norm within months.
Iran is a 3 party game internally - citizens, IRG, Theocracy.
Hence my initial comment. If the citizens dont win all this does is add fuel for future conflicts.
Long-run demilitarization as a second-stage game modelled in two stages:
Stage 1: triadic game determines whether you get:
Status quo,
IRGC-led transition, or
Negotiated transition with IRGC inside the tent.
Stage 2: In a new constitutional game, civilians choose:
Keep IRGC as parallel force,
Fold it into a normal army,
Dissolve it over time.
This requires buy-in from existing IRGC leadership with safety concerns backstopped by International Community.
Support v Defect? That moves to support the change, remain neutral and allow others to make moves or defect towards their own interests.
*Same negotiating structure as having Union buy-in during aquisition.
There is no winner under any situation, only a repositioning of interests.