One of the most common questions surrounding what will happen to Iran if it continues to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and to pummel Israel to the point of exhaustion is whether Israel will go nuclear.
If game theory depends on rational players, it might not be an appropriate method of analysis here. Rationality looks to be a bit thin on the ground in either Amerika or Israel at the moment.
North Korea has nuclear weapons and no one is bothering them. China has nukes-no one is bothering them. Same with Russia, Pakistan, India-no one is trifling with them. Iran should build nukes and I hope they do. Israel will leave them alone if they have this weapon!
In Russia, not so much. Ukraine is consistently, with NATO's help, poking the bear in the nose, striking key elements of Russia's nuclear deterrence posture: radars, strategic bombers, decision-making centers. One wonders how long Russia will maintain its strategic patience. I imagine just long enough to conclude the SMO on the ground.
I think there is a major unaddressed weak point in your best case scenario here - placing the United States as main party negotiating a settlement.
The US has repeatedly proved that they are untrustworthy, dishonorable, dishonest; that their word cannot be trusted. Iran has learned that lesson.
The odds that the US would again betray Iran in any negotiations approaches certainty.
Once you have proved yourself dishonest and broken trust, the path back to regaining trust is very difficult, if possible at all.
The question I raise is, what tangible actions would the US have to take to prove that any negotiated settlement not only would not, but could not be betrayed by the US? Mere verbal guarantees are worse than worthless.
Your argument that Iran should build a nuclear weapon is very strong, and I agree. Once that is in place, the whole issue of how to negotiate with parties proven to be traitorous needs to be addressed - and that is one ugly mess, one that the US has brought on itself by its dishonorable action.
Game theory does not take into consideration that the zionist assholes that are in charge in the USSA and in israhell, are unhinged lunatics. Take Mike Huckabee as an example for instance. The first thing that has to happen is for rational people in the USSA to overthrow the current government.
Excellent disposition - if only the West were as rational as the AI (which would probably determine the only solution for world peace is Skynet). It also needs to know told that the players are the US+vassals against Iran+Russia+China (and the US+vassals is the far weaker alliance).
There was one key piece of information the AI needed: that the US had killed the two negotiating teams during negotiations, effectively blocking the US's potential as a negotiating partner. So the only solution I see is that US allies must overturn the US hand. Japan and Korea, threatening to become China's allies (tomorrow, not far in the future), would probably do it.
If game theory depends on rational players, it might not be an appropriate method of analysis here. Rationality looks to be a bit thin on the ground in either Amerika or Israel at the moment.
You beat me to this - the underlying game theoretical key is rational players. Only one of the 3 is rational. And it ain’t Trump and Netanyahu !!!
North Korea has nuclear weapons and no one is bothering them. China has nukes-no one is bothering them. Same with Russia, Pakistan, India-no one is trifling with them. Iran should build nukes and I hope they do. Israel will leave them alone if they have this weapon!
In Russia, not so much. Ukraine is consistently, with NATO's help, poking the bear in the nose, striking key elements of Russia's nuclear deterrence posture: radars, strategic bombers, decision-making centers. One wonders how long Russia will maintain its strategic patience. I imagine just long enough to conclude the SMO on the ground.
There are three parties to the conflict. Two are lead by monkeys with a hand granade. How do we game that?
I think there is a major unaddressed weak point in your best case scenario here - placing the United States as main party negotiating a settlement.
The US has repeatedly proved that they are untrustworthy, dishonorable, dishonest; that their word cannot be trusted. Iran has learned that lesson.
The odds that the US would again betray Iran in any negotiations approaches certainty.
Once you have proved yourself dishonest and broken trust, the path back to regaining trust is very difficult, if possible at all.
The question I raise is, what tangible actions would the US have to take to prove that any negotiated settlement not only would not, but could not be betrayed by the US? Mere verbal guarantees are worse than worthless.
Your argument that Iran should build a nuclear weapon is very strong, and I agree. Once that is in place, the whole issue of how to negotiate with parties proven to be traitorous needs to be addressed - and that is one ugly mess, one that the US has brought on itself by its dishonorable action.
Game theory does not take into consideration that the zionist assholes that are in charge in the USSA and in israhell, are unhinged lunatics. Take Mike Huckabee as an example for instance. The first thing that has to happen is for rational people in the USSA to overthrow the current government.
😀 😃
Larry,
Excellent disposition - if only the West were as rational as the AI (which would probably determine the only solution for world peace is Skynet). It also needs to know told that the players are the US+vassals against Iran+Russia+China (and the US+vassals is the far weaker alliance).
There was one key piece of information the AI needed: that the US had killed the two negotiating teams during negotiations, effectively blocking the US's potential as a negotiating partner. So the only solution I see is that US allies must overturn the US hand. Japan and Korea, threatening to become China's allies (tomorrow, not far in the future), would probably do it.
The “Baboon of WAR-a-Lago” is a Dead Man Walking into 2026 midterms.