Foreign & Public Diplomacy

Why is the most powerful country on the planet unable to get its way with a much smaller, weaker country that has been ravaged by economic sanctions and military strikes? At one level, the simplest way to understand America’s problem in the Iran war is to use game theory. President Donald Trump decided to play a game of “chicken” with Iran—think of two drivers racing straight at each other. In these situations, if the stakes for one side are existential and for the other much lower, the side with the higher stakes usually prevails. For the Iranian regime, if it loses, there is a good chance it ends up toppled and slaughtered. For Trump, it would be a bad weekend at Mar-a-Lago. It’s easy to see why the Iranians would be more willing to lock their steering wheel in that game of chicken.

But there is a broader reason the United States has found it so difficult to handle Iran, one that is not just about Trump and this latest ill-conceived war. Ever since the Islamic regime took power in Iran, America has been of two minds about it. On the one hand, the U.S. has had certain issues it wanted resolved—from the return of the hostages to nuclear limits. On the other hand, it wants to topple the regime, not just negotiate with it. There is a tension in these two attitudes that has run though U.S. foreign policy for almost half a century. Does Washington want to change certain policies of Iran or does it want to change Iran?

Why is the most powerful country on the planet unable to get its way with a much smaller, weaker country that has been ravaged by economic sanctions and military strikes? At one level, the simplest way to understand America’s problem in the Iran war is to use game theory. President Donald Trump decided to play a game of “chicken” with Iran—think of two drivers racing straight at each other. In these situations, if the stakes for one side are existential and for the other much lower, the........

© Foreign Policy