But it makes for a good game theory example nonetheless. It starts with:
The Bush administration has become rather expert at deploying the relentless anti-Bush Left for its own purposes. The Left has made itself completely predictable, and a predictable poker player can be beaten.
A deliberately deceptive NIE [report on Iran's nuclear program] could have two purposes.
1. It could pressure Israel and the Arabs.
2. It could mislead Ahmadi-Nejad.
The core claim is that the release of the report precommits the United States to not attacking Iran, at least for a while. This puts more pressure on other parties (including the Europeans) to help solve the problem. Furthermore the U.S. will have more influence over both Israel and the Arab nations, who will need U.S. support against Iran for the foreseeable future and cannot reckon on the chance that the Iranian regime will be taken out. Can you graph this into a game tree?
The problem with this sort of explanation, of course, is simply that one government finds it hard to predict how other governments will interpret its actions, and thus complicated game-theoretic strategies are more likely to confuse than anything else.
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
The other problem is, it is too clever by half.
I do find it puzzling that lefties shout “lie” whenever the Bush admin announces “bad news” but accepts as true any announcements by same that seem to be “good news.” Why should the good news be any more reliable than the bad?
>> … thus complicated game-theoretic strategies…
Politics is not quantum mechanics.
Point three was missing.
3. It helps the Republicans in ’08 since pretending there is no problem avoids “confrontation” (aka war) in the short term.
Sheesh. Quite aside from imputing far more intelligence to Bush and his
cronies than has been exhibited so far, the alternatives being bandied
about are simply too believable to be pushed aside by this implausible
Rube Goldberg contrivance. Tom Schelling is not running this administration,
nor is Eric Maskin or Roger Myerson, not to mention Robert Aumann.
So, credible reports have it that about a year and a half ago, what was
now agreed to by all recognized 16 intel agencies was a dissent, mostly pushed
by the intel agency that has long had the best track record of them all, State’s
small but competent I&R. The Cheney war hawk crowd tried to squash this dissent
and suppressed the report. A long struggle ensued, but with new intel coming
in from both humint and sigint this past summer, things swung the other way, and
what was a dissent became a unanimous opinion. There was still an effort to sit on
it, but eventually it became clear that this effort would eventuate in leaking of
the finding, so, after getting the ability to do some major redaction of details
that were formerly let out (late October), it was finally released.
There is a further punctuation on this that reinforces the finding, although it has
been widely ignored in the US. It is that on August 9, 2005, Vilayat el Faqih and
Commander-in-Chief of the military, Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, issued a fatwa against
the construction of nuclear weapons. This was ignored largely on the grounds that
people in the US focused on the looney statements of President Ahmadinejad, roundly
ignoring the fact that he did not and does not conrol the military, the intelligence
agencies, the courts, or a lot of other crucial apparati of the state, a point that
used to be widely bandied about when the more moderate Mohammed Khatami held his
position. In any case, it is now clear that Khamene’i's widely ignored fatwa was
an affirmation and delineation of the decision that was made in February, 2003,
before Iraq was invaded by the US, not after as some commentators have been loudly
declaring recently.
BTW, this fatwa is probably the strongest piece of evidence that the NIE report is
correct and not a phoney. Alhough the war hawk crowd likes to believe that ruling
ayatollahs lie when they make religious declarations, this is delusional. Does the
Pope issue encyclicals that he believes are phoney? This is on the same order of
magnitude. As long as Khamene’i remains Vilayat el Faqih, Iran will not build nuclear
weapons, period.
“”Bush may be a lame duck but I think he is capable of appreciating the long-term consequences of his actions.”
First of all, I just did a spit take on my monitor.”
Me too. It was such an obvious statement. He has ALWAYS looked quite far down the road while his critics have a time horizon of about six months.
Invasion or Iraq is a good example. No one in the world took us seriously – you can poke us in the eye and we would not respond.
We WERE the paper tiger Osama though. Once we invaded Iraq the Lebanese pushed for a vote, Libya gave up their program, and now we have just learned Iran ended their program.
Bush may not have pleased those who are concerned with immediate gratification, but his efforts will look good in history.
Uh, well, when did these happen? After the invasion.
Clinton’s negotiations with the Libyans seem to have went as well as his negotiations with North Koreans (another country that seems now willing to give up the nukes to Bush). Seems you are still the one not paying attention.
Tom,
Oh yes. North Korea is not “giving up its nukes.”
Just rehalting its plutonium production. It still
has and will not give up the bombs it made after
Bush messed up. Get real.
Comments on this entry are closed.