Game Theory #11: The Law of Escalation

We continue our analysis of the US-Iran war. In this conflict, there are three major questions that will determine its outcome as well as the state of the world afterward.

These three questions are:

1. Will the US launch a ground invasion?
2. Will nukes be used?
3. What will happen to the Al-Aqsa Mosque?

Right now, the United States and Israel are primarily focused on an air war, striking Iran from a distance. In the past, we would call this siege warfare. As long as it remains an air war, the United States can choose to de-escalate and withdraw from the Middle East. They would lose this war, but the loss would not be catastrophic. However, if they choose to launch a ground invasion, it would escalate very quickly, and they would be trapped in Iran for the next 5 to 10 years. It would be a catastrophe whether they win or lose because, to fight a ground war, the United States would have to institute a national draft where young men as young as 18 would be forced to join the army and be sent to fight in Iran.

This is the first big question. Remember the idea of mission creep, where you might start by sending 1,000 troops for a small mission, but when it doesn't go well, you send in 2,000. It slowly creeps up. That's how the United States embroiled itself in Vietnam.

The second big question is, will nukes be used? There's a lot of concern online that Israel is preparing a nuclear strike on Iran because the Israelis don't like how the war is going and they want to reclaim the initiative. Nukes are a taboo in geopolitics. The Americans used them at the end of World War II, and no one has used them since. If Israel were to use tactical nuclear weapons, they would break this universal taboo, and we might find ourselves in a nuclear apocalypse.

The third question concerns the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This is the third holiest site in the Islamic world, after Mecca and Medina. Muslims believe that it is from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem where Muhammad ascended to heaven. Jews believe that the Al-Aqsa Mosque sits on the site of their Temple, which is the house of God. Religious Jewish extremists want to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque to rebuild the Third Temple. If they were to do so, the two billion Muslims in this world would be religiously obligated to go to war against Israel.

These are the three big questions that will determine the future of this war and the world. Using game theory, I am going to make three predictions and then show you the analysis behind them. It's important to understand that these are only my guesses based on my analysis. I don't have inside information; I'm just working with public knowledge and game theory.

1. Will the United States send in ground troops? According to game theory, yes.
2. Will nukes be used? According to game theory, no.
3. Will the Al-Aqsa Mosque be destroyed? According to game theory, yes.

For my analysis to be valid, I have to be correct on all three. If I miss one, then my theory is wrong. I know there's a lot of concern that nukes will be used, and I am 100% confident that nukes will not be used at this time in this war. If I'm wrong, I apologize to the world. But at the same time, we'll all be dead anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Today, I will explain my analysis for the first two predictions: why Israel will not use nuclear weapons and why there will be a ground invasion.

The Law of Escalation: Control vs. Dominance

To understand what's going on, I need to teach some basic geopolitical theory. In military affairs and geopolitics, there's a concept called the escalation ladder. The dominant theory is that whoever has escalation dominance has the most advantage. For example, if you and I get in a fight, and I have a knife while you have a gun, the gun is more dominant. Therefore, you have a greater advantage and should, in theory, win.

Applied to the war in the Middle East, Israel and the United States have escalation dominance because they have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't. Therefore, they have a huge advantage over Iran. But I will show you that this theory is incorrect; it doesn't actually work that way.

Let's start with a simple example. Say two people, A and B, get into a fight. The escalation ladder might work like this:

1. Conflict: A and B run into each other. A says, "Hey man, say sorry." B replies, "It's not my fault. You say sorry." It's a small conflict, and no one knows who's at fault.
2. Cursing: They start cursing each other. "Screw you." "Screw you."
3. Pushing: They might start pushing each other.
4. Fighting: They start punching each other.
5. Weapons: One pulls out a knife, and the other pulls out a gun. B shoots, and the fight is over.

There are certain things to keep in mind about this example. The fight is not contained between just A and B. There are other players involved: spectators, friends, and a crowd watching. This is important because eventually, the police will come and ask people what happened. For those who are religious, there's also God. If you die, you have to explain how you died.

In this escalation ladder, three factors drive people up: emotions, power, and reason (or logic). What drives people up is adrenaline. It is impossible to skip the escalation ladder; you don't go from "Hey, screw you" to someone pulling out a gun and shooting you. You have to go step-by-step because adrenaline is rushing through your system, making you angrier but also stronger and more resolved.

What's really important is that it's not about how fast you climb the escalation ladder. If you get too angry and overreact, then you are at fault. You want to climb it strategically, which means you have to remain calm and controlled. If you remain calm and controlled, you have three advantages over your opponent: focus, clarity, and resolve. This means you know what you're doing, you have a clear strategy to achieve your goal, and you are determined to achieve it.

To have all three, you must remain calm and control yourself as you climb the ladder. Remember, it's not just about beating your opponent; it's about justifying yourself to your friends, the police, and God. You might win the fight, but if you go to prison for 10 years, you've ultimately lost.

This brings us to the law of escalation, a very important idea in my game theory model.

Control is more important than dominance.

Why? Because control is about calibration. Calibration means you time, structure, or strategize your response in a way that helps you achieve your strategic objective. You're not just throwing punches; you're throwing a punch in a certain way that allows you to defend yourself, strikes fear in the opponent, and also allows you to seem like the good guy to spectators. When the police come, you can justify why you threw that punch so you don't go to jail.

Another way of saying this is that calibration is ultimately about strategic flexibility. In a fight, the person who has the most options and the most flexible strategy will usually win.

The Bully in the Cafeteria: A Thought Experiment

Let's do a thought experiment to understand what's happening between the United States and Iran.

Imagine there's a bully, the biggest guy in school, and he has a gang of four friends. They prey on everyone at the school, which has about a hundred people. They make everyone in the cafeteria pay a tax—maybe a dollar—to eat. The bully's friends collect the tax and give him the money, which he shares with his gang.

At first, people are okay with this system because they think the bully is keeping peace and order in the cafeteria. They pay a dollar, but they feel safe and can enjoy their lunch. Over time, however, the bully gets more arrogant and feels invincible. He develops hubris, believing no one has the courage to challenge him.

So, he starts charging more money, and people become disgruntled. Not only that, but he also pays his friends less so he can have more money for himself. Everyone is unhappy, but they feel there's nothing they can do.

One day, a new kid comes to the school. He doesn't understand the rules and goes to the cafeteria without paying the tax. The bully's friend comes over and says, "Hey man, where's the dollar?" The new kid is confused and refuses to pay. As a lesson, they ostracize him, making him sit alone. The new kid doesn't care; he's happy not having any friends.

The bully and his friends discuss how to get the new kid to play along. They decide to curse at him and bully him. But when they do, the new kid just ignores them. This makes them wonder why he isn't afraid. Slowly, the other kids start to see that it might be possible to rebel against the bully. They start talking to the new kid secretly, giving him presents and saying hi. But the new kid ignores everyone and stays focused.

Meanwhile, the bully's friends start to think, "We don't benefit that much from this relationship anyway. Maybe if we make this new kid the new boss, he'll treat us better." Others think, "This bully is fat and ugly. Maybe I should be the boss." The new kid's simple act of challenging the existing reality has created dissent and rebellion.

One day, the bully's friend calls the new kid a wimp, and the new kid finally says, "I'm not afraid of you." The friend reports this to the bully, who gets angry and says, "I'm going to go punch his face." The bully confronts the new kid: "If you don't apologize, I'm going to punch you in the face." The new kid calmly asks, "What did I do wrong? What should I apologize for?" This goes on for a long time until the bully gets so pissed off that he punches the new kid in the face. He started it.

The new kid, though hurt, punches the bully back. The bully is stronger and beats up the new kid. But now, everyone in the school has seen that the bully is not that strong and is actually pretty weak. They realize that if they stand with the new kid, they can beat the bully. Eventually, the bully is defeated.

The bully has escalation dominance because he's the strongest kid. But what wins the fight is control, calibration, and strategic flexibility. The new kid has many different options and picks the one that is most strategically advantageous. The bully, on the other hand, doesn't have many options because he needs to maintain his credibility—the idea that if you don't obey him, he will beat you up. The moment you show it's not a big deal to be punched by him, he loses all credibility. This means he either has to retreat or strike harder to maintain it.

By calibrating your movements strategically, you can manipulate the bully into self-destruction.

Applying the Theory to the Middle East

Now, let's apply the law of escalation to what's happening in the Middle East by looking at the escalation ladders of both Iran and the United States.

The US and Iranian Escalation Ladders

United States Escalation Ladder:

1. Decapitation: Kill the leaders. The idea is that without leaders, the country will surrender. This didn't work.
2. Attack Military Targets: Strike air defenses and military bases to force the military to surrender. This also didn't work.
3. Economic Embargo: Prevent Iran from trading with the world, especially selling oil, by blockading the seas. The idea is that if the government has no money to pay its soldiers, they won't fight. This hasn't worked either.
4. Attack Civilian Infrastructure: This is primarily water and oil facilities. The Israelis attacked an oil depot in Iran. This is a war crime under international law, but it's what you do when you feel you need to apply more pressure.
5. Use Secret Weapons: Deploy advanced missiles no one has ever seen before to scare people with a show of dominance.
6. Use Biological and Chemical Weapons.
7. Use Nuclear Weapons.

It's crucial to understand that you must follow this escalation ladder to use nuclear weapons. We have not seen secret weapons or biochemical weapons used yet, so nuclear weapons come later. I think we are currently at the stage of attacking civilian infrastructure, and already we're seeing arguments in the American political system against it. Attacking civilian infrastructure tends to unite the people behind their government, which is the opposite of the intended goal of splitting them apart. We have a long way to go before we hit nuclear weapons.

Iran Escalation Ladder:

1. Attack US Military Targets: Primarily targeting US radar systems and air defenses. Once these are gone, Iran can attack whatever it wants.
2. Close the Strait of Hormuz: This puts pressure on the economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait) as well as East Asia. The hope is that these nations will pressure the US to end the war. China gets about 40% of its oil and Japan gets 75% from this strait.
3. Attack Enemy Economies: If you attack their economy, they will attack yours with missiles, targeting oil fields.
4. Attack Enemy Civilian Infrastructure: If you attack their civilian infrastructure, they will attack yours. The main weakness in the GCC countries is their desalination plants.

That's the extent of the Iranian escalation ladder. It doesn't have nuclear or biochemical weapons, nor does it have intercontinental missiles to target the United States. So, while the US and Israel have escalation dominance, Iran has much more flexibility and calibration.

When the United States attacks, it's blunt. But if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it can be strategic. For example, it can let a Chinese ship pass or let a GCC nation's ship pass if they pay a tax or declare friendship. By closing the strait, Iran creates a calibration strategy, allowing it to selectively apply pressure to US allies to turn them into friends of Iran. The same applies to drone strikes against oil fields and military targets: if you attack me, I attack you; if you don't, I won't.

Different Military Decision Trees

The US and Iran have different military decision trees. The US and Israel are just attacking Iran with air power, which is very blunt. They move from one step to the next on a classic escalation ladder.

Iran's strategy is different. It aims to force the United States to admit defeat and retreat from the GCC, closing down its military bases in the Middle East. This would give Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz and, therefore, world trade. This strategy provides different options, such as attacking military or civilian targets in Israel. Iran can be much more selective in its targeting than the United States and Israel, giving it more diverse options and, therefore, escalation control.

Iran is active while the US is passive. Like the bully, the US has to maintain credibility. If provoked, it has no choice but to hit back. But Iran, like the new kid, can choose when and how to provoke.

Iran has a clear strategy: control the Strait of Hormuz and get the United States out of the Middle East. It is calibrating its attacks to achieve this goal. The United States, on the other hand, doesn't know what it wants. "Destroy Iran" is ambiguous. Does it mean regime change, economic collapse, or civilian starvation? This confusion muddles military strategy.

By studying the escalation ladder, we discover that Iran has far more advantages than the United States. This means Iran will probably win this war ultimately. But to do so, it has to have focus, clarity, and resolve.

• Focus means unity—crushing all internal dissent.
• Clarity means censorship. We already see this in Israel, where filming military strikes is forbidden.
• Resolve means militarization—moving towards total war, where every citizen is recruited into the war effort and the entire economy is geared towards war.

The Multi-Dimensional Battlefield

This war is being fought multi-dimensionally. The military is just one dimension. There are four major dimensions to consider:

1. Narrative: World opinion.
2. Political: The relationship between nations and between governments and their people.
3. Economic: Nations are still trading with each other even as the fight happens.
4. Military: This is probably the least important dimension.

These four factors determine how the United States and Iran move up the escalation ladder. Your purpose is to control the narrative and justify your actions. Politically, you have to maintain good relations with other states. As the US fights Iran, it is still talking to China and Russia, and those discussions shape the contours of the fight. War is not as simple as saying, "Let's nuke that guy." There are many constraints, factors, and stakeholders involved that constrain the use of nukes.

Prediction 1: Why a Ground Invasion is Inevitable

The first question was, will ground troops be used? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. It has to do with how wars are fought and the military's cost pyramid.

A correct cost pyramid looks like this, from cheapest to most expensive:

1. Infantry (Soldiers)
2. Armor (Artillery, Tanks)
3. Naval
4. Air

It costs very little to produce a soldier but a lot to produce an airplane. This is important because wars are usually wars of attrition, meaning you have to put all your resources into winning.

The problem is that the United States has an inverse pyramid:

1. Air
2. Naval
3. Armor
4. Soldiers

You can't fight a real war like this. The moment you choose to, you've lost, because you either take out the country in two days or you're screwed because you cannot replenish your forces. The 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War were not real wars; they were video games because the Americans were so dominant and Iraq was so weak. This conflict with Iran is a real war.

If the United States wants to win this war, the only thing it can do is return to a realistic cost pyramid. It has no choice in the matter. You cannot afford to use an airplane to save the life of one soldier. Eventually, this cost-benefit analysis will blow up. If the United States wants to win, it has no choice but to use ground troops as the main force of its military.

The Game Theory of a Ground War

But will the United States actually use ground troops? This is determined by the game theory strategies of the four major players: the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

The United States just wants to destroy Iran. But as you can see, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all want to destroy the United States. How do you do that? You do that by forcing the United States into a long ground war.

Therefore, if you're Israel, you don't want to use nukes because nukes would end the war too quickly. You want to drag this war out as long as possible to force the United States to send in ground troops. The United States won't use nuclear weapons because it needs to justify itself on the escalation ladder. It has to worry about troop morale, public opinion, political will, and not provoking the enemy into an extreme reaction beyond its control.

War is extremely complicated. It's not just about weaponry or resources; it's ultimately about controlling the narrative and the political landscape.

So, will the US use ground troops? Yes, it will, because Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel will work together to force a ground invasion. The United States doesn't have a clear, coherent strategy and is passive, so it can be manipulated into sending ground troops.

Prediction 2: Why Nuclear Weapons Won't Be Used

Will the United States or Israel use nuclear weapons? The answer is no, because it's not in their best interest. Israel wants the United States to lose this war. That means a long war that destroys the American political will to fight any more foreign wars. If America loses, Israel becomes the dominant power in the Middle East.