A panel of game theory experts shared their assessments of the outcome of the direct confrontation between Israel and Iran in the New York Times.
The events of the last few weeks, including Israel's successful attacks on Iran's proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the barrage of ballistic missiles that Iran launched at Israel on Tuesday night, have shown that the old rules in the Middle East no longer apply.
Now, the question is whether Israel and Iran will reach a new equilibrium or will the combination of uncertainty and aggression drag the Middle East into an all-out war.
A panel of game theory experts provided an assessment to the Times to show what a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran would look like.
Explaining game theory
It's a simple-sounding idea with implications so powerful that it won a Nobel Prize.
Wars—managing and preventing them—are essentially games of prediction. Game theory is a method for analyzing the strategies of different players—whether armies, business rivals, or poker players—that strives to achieve the best results.
Regarding war, each side needs to predict how the other side will react to a given move and to weigh its costs and benefits. By positing a credible possibility that the cost of an attack would be too high to justify it, this theory does not just apply to nuclear war.
Other forms of conflict, including ongoing tensions such as those between Israel, Iran, and Iran's affiliate militias, also revolve around one question: What move should one make to advance interests and prevent an adversary from imposing costs that one is unwilling to bear?
Game theory experts told the NYT that: "Israel has always been militarily stronger than Iran, especially when its close alliance with the United States is taken into account."
They emphasized: "Iran nurtured the militias known as the 'Axis of Resistance' - including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Houthis in Yemen - who posed a real threat that the costs of an all-out war would be too high for Israel.
"Until two weeks ago, the balance in the Middle East was maintained, but starting with the pager attack attributed to Israel, the balance was shaken."
Game theory indicates that in the end, the weaker side - in this case, Iran and its affiliates - is responsible for maintaining deterrence, said one expert: "The burden placed on the weaker player is to restrain the stronger side by behavior that shows that an all-out conflict would lead to irreparable damage tolerable."
According to the unwritten rules of the game, Israel's recent attacks on Hezbollah were supposed to provoke a devastating response from the armed organization, said Daniel Sobelman, a professor at the Hebrew University who is writing a book on game theory in the Middle East.
"Theoretically, there should have been thousands of Israelis dead," he said."High-rise buildings should have collapsed in Israel." But it didn't happen. Either because Israel's attacks were so devastating that Hezbollah no longer could respond, or for some other reason, the expected response never came.
The deterrence that Iran relied on to keep the conflict at a manageable level appeared, in practice, to have collapsed.
"Deterrence has failed," said Emma Ashford, a security expert. "The Iranians now have to figure out if they can prevent Israel or the US from crossing more red lines?" It seems they tried to test the answer to that question last week when they launched 180 ballistic missiles at Israel, Ashford added.
Sobelman, who has studied Iran and its proxies for decades, said he believes Iran was trying to deter Israel rather than start a new era of direct conflict between the countries. "Iran tried to establish a certain threshold of deterrence that would result in the closure of this cycle of escalation," he said.
"The question now is whether Israel will see it that way - and even if so, will the Israeli government see at this moment an opportunity to do further damage to Iran when it appears that the threat of retaliation from Hezbollah has been significantly reduced?" He asked, adding: "If this happens, it is not clear how much the situation could escalate or how the US and other Israeli allies will react.
Sobelman concluded that the essential result of a direct campaign between Israel and Iran would be one that would lead to the heaviest burden on citizens on both sides of the "game board."