Game Theory and the Dyanmics in Iran

This may or may not be of interest to this audience, but there is a very interesting discussion going on right now over at my blog regarding the use of game theory to understand the current dynamics in Iran. A colleague of mine, Andrew Little, wrote down a very simple model of election fraud that has sparked some good debate, so I wanted to alert your attention to it should the topic be of interest.

Here is a brief on Andrew's model:

Quote:

---

In this game there are two players an incumbent I and an opposition O. These players are bargaining over some policy space (we’ll say it’s the [0,1] interval, though it is not particularly important), which represents the amount of concession the incumbent is willing to give to the opposition (sound familiar?). The game unfolds in the following manner:

1. Nature reveals private information to I about their strength should conflict occur.
2. An election occurs. Nature reveals the results of the election to I.
3. If I loses, they choose to reveal the true results to the opposition or commit fraud to make it appear that they won.
4. The incumbent makes an offer x to the opposition.
5. If fraud was committed, the opposition detects the fraud with probability pf.
6. The opposition chooses to accept the offer or reject it, leading to conflict.

The opposition’s decision to accept the offer from the incumbent or have a conflict is based both on what they observe (a victory or loss for the incumbent) and their belief about whether the incumbent is a strong or weak type (i.e., their repressive capacity). The election results matter because they shape the opposition belief about this type. Andrew went on to discuss the pooling and separating equilibrium of this game, and while this discussion is a bit too detailed for a blog post, the consequences of these findings are very interesting.

---

For more on the interpretation of this model for Iran, and the ensuing debate please check out the full post.

Hope you enjoy!

From the NYT by Brian Knowlton: Biden Suggests U.S. Not Standing in Israel’s Way on Iran

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

---

From the Times Online by Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter: Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran

Quote:

---

The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.

Although the countries have no formal diplomatic relations, an Israeli defence source confirmed that Mossad maintained “working relations” with the Saudis.

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations who recently visited the Gulf, said it was “entirely logical” for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewconway

This may or may not be of interest to this audience, but there is a very interesting discussion going on right now over at my blog regarding the use of game theory to understand the current dynamics in Iran. A colleague of mine, Andrew Little, wrote down a very simple model of election fraud that has sparked some good debate, so I wanted to alert your attention to it should the topic be of interest.

---

Hoover Digest: Changing The Game
A game theorist looks at Iran’s intentions—and where its nuclear program is heading. By Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.



Hoover senior fellow Bruce Bueno de Mesquita described his work in game theory at the TED2009 conference (TED stands for technology, entertainment, and design) held February 7 in Long Beach, California. The Economist, reporting on the gathering, said Bueno de Mesquita deserved the event’s “putting your money where your mouth is” prize for his predictions about Iran and its nuclear program. “If all this comes to pass,” wrote the newsmagazine, “remember: TED heard it first.” Highlights of the talk:

What I’m going to try to do is explain how to predict, and quickly illustrate it with some predictions, what Iran is going to do in the next couple of years.

To predict effectively, we need to use science, because we can then reproduce what we’re doing and not rely on wisdom or guesswork. And if we can predict, then we can engineer the future. So if you are concerned about influencing energy policy, or national security policy, or health policy, or education, then science—and a particular branch of science—is a way to do it. This is not the way we’ve been doing it, which has been by using seatof- the-pants wisdom.

Now before I get into how to do it, let me give you a little truth in advertising, because I’m not engaged in the business of magic. There are lots of things that the approach I take can predict, and there are some that it can’t.

It can predict complex negotiations or situations involving coercion—in essence everything that has to do with politics and much of what has to do with business—but sorry, if you’re looking to speculate in the stock market, I don’t predict stock markets. (OK, it’s not going up any time really soon.) I’m also not involved in predicting random-number generation. I actually get phone calls from people who want to know which lottery numbers are going to win. I don’t have a clue.

I use game theory. It’s a branch of mathematics, which means that even in the study of politics, math has come into the picture. We can no longer just speculate about politics; we need to look at it in a rigorous way.

(Snip)

I'll have to admit that I was underwhelmed by Bueno de Mesquita's analysis on this, I must admit--as were most of the Iran analysts that I discussed it with.

On the game theoretic modelling of Iranian election fraud, a few complicating factors occur to me:

1) The incumbent can't decide on all element of fraud prior to knowing the outcome--come of them need to be committed to earlier.

2) The larger the degree of fraud, the greater the probability of being caught. Last minute fraud has a higher probability of being caught than pre-election fraud.

3) The challenger has imperfect information on whether fraud was committed, or how much difference it made to the outcome.

4) Both parties have imperfect information on the resources it can bring to bear to a conflict over election results until after that conflict erupts. The greater the degree of fraud (or the greater the degree of perceived fraud), the greater the resources that are available to the challenger (in the form of popular outrage).

Quote:

---

To predict effectively, we need to use science, because we can then reproduce what we’re doing and not rely on wisdom or guesswork. And if we can predict, then we can engineer the future. So if you are concerned about influencing energy policy, or national security policy, or health policy, or education, then science—and a particular branch of science—is a way to do it. This is not the way we’ve been doing it, which has been by using seatof- the-pants wisdom.

---

What a bunch of hooey. Pseudo-scientific techniques can be very useful but nothing can substitute for the human mind informed by extensive research and knowledge.