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.