Every foreign policy blunder the U.S. has made since the end of World War II come down to the same factors in place today, best described by game theory. Game theory shows why the war in Ukraine was never winnable, and why foreign policy advisors should have known that. Game theory shows why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so protracted, and how the horrific events of October 7th will profoundly impact the Middle East.
Game theory postulates that there are two kinds of games. Finite games and infinite games. Finite games are characterized by conflict rules and set boundaries. Opponents fight until the game rules dictate the end. There are winners and losers. Sports offer many good examples of finite games. Board games such as chess offer others.
Infinite games are not structured and have no agreed to rules of engagement. Although uncodified rules may develop organically over time. The conflict continues until one of the parties runs out of will and/or resources. The Cold War is a classic example of an infinite game. The Cold War continued until the Soviet Union ran out of both will and resources. The West won by not losing.
The Vietnam war is a classic example of one side behaving as if it was in a finite game conflict, and the other an infinite game conflict. The Chinese are consummate experts in game theory, going back to Sun Tsu’s The Art of War, written 2,500 years ago. The Chinese wisely counseled Ho Chi Minh and his successor, Le Duan on the erratic impulsiveness of U.S. foreign policy and continuous need for short-term political gratification. The North Vietnamese simply had to wait for the game to run its course. We exhausted our political will, our resources, and worse created many adverse long-term ramifications still in play a half century later.
As in Vietnam, U.S. foreign policy advisors again think they’re playing a finite game in Ukraine. But the Russians, like the Chinese understands the infinite game. They’ve survived many invasions. Russia certainly did not invade Ukraine with the intention of conquering Ukraine, let alone with intentions of attacking a NATO member. Putin’s goal was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
Ukraine aligning with the West has been the “magical thinking” ambition of U.S. foreign policy neocons going back to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. After a provocative speech by George W. Bush at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin could not have been clearer that he considered Ukraine in NATO an intolerable existential threat to Russia’s national security. Zelensky understood this predicament in March of 2022 when he tried to reach a settlement with Putin to stop the war. In an act of U.S. foreign policy malfeasance and game theory incompetence, Biden intervened at the last minute to kill the deal.
A defensive war of attrition against inferior forces is exactly the right strategy to ensure not losing, a key tenant of the infinity game. Playing not to lose forces the opponent to bring the fight to you. It wears aggressor down, every time. Think Napoleon. Think Stalingrad. The war in Ukraine will soon end in stalemate. Russia has already achieved its war objectives. Ukraine is in ruins. The Ukrainians may have the will, but certainly not the manpower or credible force multiplier needed to make a strategic difference.
Contrast the West’s approach in Ukraine with the Reagan/Gorbachev Summit in Reykjavik in October 1986. Gorbachev came to the meeting with significant and reasonable proposals for improving USSR/U.S. relations, particularly regarding nuclear weapons. Reality was that the Soviet Union lacked the resources to match the technological “raise the ante” that Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) represented. After two days of discussions, Gorbachev went home with only Reagan’s promise to study their proposals. Reagan agreed to nothing of substance. It was a brilliant, pivotal moment; a crack in the USSR’s will to continue in the face of ever-increasing pressure on dwindling resources to keep playing a losing hand.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is yet another tragic example of game theory confusion by the West. It should be clear to anyone that if the Palestinians were ever going to make a deal with Israel it would have happened by now. The two-state solution is more magical thinking to maintain an illusion of progress so that the game can continue. But who’s game is it, and what kind of game is being played?
The Palestinians have been led to believe that they will prevail, eventually. It matters not that every time one or more of the ancillary players has tried to impose a finite game solution, the outcome was predictable. Israel, as Russia, when faced with an existential threat to its survival did whatever necessary to prevail and in the process become stronger. Many of the former belligerents such as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia ran out of will in the face of Western economic opportunity. They chose instead to develop positive long-term relations with Israel and the West. And did it while still pretending to care about the fate of the Palestinians, which they most certainly do not. Others, such as Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Libya became failed states, ruled by dictators or gangs, who in turn became proxies for the Iranian regime.
If the Arab World did care, certainly Saudi Arabia or Egypt could easily carve out space for the Palestinians to build a new homeland. But then that would solve one problem and create another: The risk of destabilization to their own regimes. Kicked out of every country that has hosted them, the Palestinians have a much-earned reputation as troublemakers.
To stay in the game and keep their hopes alive the Palestinians have needed more resources from new sponsors. Iran’s ruling regime (Shiite) was eager to back terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah (both Sunni) to bolster the Palestinian (also Sunni) hand. The Iranian regime certainly did not do this because they are friends to any of these groups. They did it to destabilize one infinite game, which they understood greatly favors Israel, and substitute their own infinite game in which Hamas and Hezbollah serve are their proxies. Hamas appropriates the Palestinian resources for the jihad while leaving the Palestinian people to languish in poverty as sympathetic symbols and human shields.
The U.S., Israel’s backstop in the long-standing Palestinian conflict infinity game is allowing itself to become embroiled in a second infinite game. The Iranian ruling regime knows that successfully developing nuclear weapons will force the U.S. into the same infinite game the U.S. faced with the U.S.S.R. Mutual assured destruction was the key to stability in that infinite game, ensuring the long-term survival of the Iranian regime. That President Obama pursued a nuclear weapons agreement with the Iranian regime, which President Trump wisely killed, and then President Biden failed to resurrect show that neither Obama nor Biden understand the game theory ramifications of their policies.
North Korea’s Kim Jong Um is certainly watching carefully to see how this plays out while he pursues his own strategic nuclear capability to enhance or reimagine his infinite game strategy with the U.S.
The economic fortunes of the Iranian regime have improved under Obama and Biden, emboldening them to expand their infinite game destabilization agenda. Obama and Biden’s efforts to bribe the Iranian regime into a nuclear deal and reward Iranian hostage taking with ridiculous concessions, only the very naive could possibly believe would ever be productive prove the point.
Which brings us to the motive behind the October 7th Hamas horror show. Why such an odious, heinous attack? Why all the Go Pro video? To deliberately force Israel into the brutal, but necessary actions being taken now in Gaza. The Iranian regime goal was in its potential to produce new issues for the 2024 presidential election the progressive left could exploit to keep this Democrat Administration in office. Preposterous claims of a Palestinian genocide as a replay of the Black Lives Matter movement of the 2020 election can already be seen popping up across U.S. university campuses.
But in their zeal to promote Hamas inhumane behavior, the Iranians may not have considered the psychological impact on all who saw their videos. If it was to garner fear, they miscalculated. The pure joy of dumb brute terrorists committing what can only be characterized as acts of pure evil cannot be unseen. In an instant most people everywhere knew whose side they were on, and who’s side everyone else was. Rabid antisemitic declarations can’t be walked back. A “Jane Fonda Hanoi Jane” moment preserved forever on social media and surely to be featured prominently in the 2024 campaign season by political advisories.
Perhaps World War II offers the best infinite game example of what happens when evil becomes a game strategy. The gloves come off quickly Most people recognize evil for what it is; a virulent pathogen that must be irradicated, no matter how painful the process.
Our next U.S. president should direct a thorough reevaluation of America’s foreign policy agenda across the globe. Using game theory reasoning as a foundation provides a valuable tool for focusing policy development on rational bilateral foreign policy goals and strategies that best serves our nation’s long-term interests. Whatever those policies are should not be kept a secret. But made explainable and understandable to everyone, friend and foe alike.
Until the U.S. learns to conduct foreign policy based on a thoughtful understanding of the long-term game theory ramifications of our policies, instead of manufacturing false narratives of moral superiority to justify inexplicable policies, we’ll continue producing endless fiascos contrary to our own national best interests.
