Reconciling the Irreconcilable Schism
Game Theory: How Trump Threaded the Needle on Iran
Just over 7 days ago, a schism emerged that many predicted would be ‘the beginning of the end’ for the MAGA movement—a violent disagreement within Trump’s Conservative coalition between the hawkish, pro-Israel ‘Interventionists’ on one side, and the doveish ‘Isolationists’ who vehemently opposed any type of US military action in support of Israel, on the other.
Trump’s support appeared to be splintering, with many (including some at TWT) increasingly unsure about how to reconcile his foreign policy stance on the campaign trail with his approach to the conflict.
Quite a lot can change within a week.
Less than 24 hours after a ceasefire was brokered between Israel and Iran, the schism doesn’t seem so gaping after all.
What the Hell Happened?
A brief recap of the Schism’s origins and each side’s motivations will provide an idea of just how narrow the middle ground—which is now in sight—truly is.
On the Isolationist side are the Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon types, who have made the argument that any US intervention into the Iran-Israeli conflict contradicts the “America First” principles central to Trump’s MAGA movement. This group’s stance centers around the belief that, rather than fighting another needless war in the Middle East, US resources should be conserved to address pressing domestic issues like immigration, infrastructure, and general economic prosperity.
Regarding the conflict itself, this group is (allegedly) not necessarily anti-Israel, nor pro-Iran. But they do believe the impending threat of Iranian nuclear armament is overblown (and/or a lie orchestrated by “Deep State” Intelligence affiliates), pointing to the fact that Iran has reportedly been ‘on the verge’ of nuclear capability for the best part of three decades. In essence, the Isolationists believe the conflict, even if legitimate, is Israel’s Problem, and that even one American life lost in the conflict is too many.
On the opposite side is a strange meta-coalition of pro-Israeli advocates like Ben Shapiro and pro-military-action-of-any-kind types like Senator Lindsey Graham. This Interventionist contingent believes Iran’s ever-growing nuclear program and alleged attempts to assassinate President Trump (based on the DOJ’s indictment of an Iranian asset) necessitate decisive action on America’s part.
The fact that this coalition includes Neo-Cons and known warmongers definitely doesn’t help the optics of their argument. But hey—even a broken clock is right twice a day (if it’s analog; if it’s digital it’s probably never right).
The Dreaded Schism
Steve Bannon and others expressed concern that this vicious debate may have exposed a frailty in Trump’s coalition—that MAGA itself might be torn asunder as a result. During Tucker Carlson’s fiery interview with Ted Cruz last week, this prediction appeared to be well founded—with Carlson and Cruz seemingly unable to agree on anything, up to and including their own names. After all, there is very little room for overlap between these two ‘hardline’ stances—neither of which appears willing to compromise on any part of their position.
There’s just no middle ground to be found, right? Wrong. So very wrong.
Game Theory
Through a targeted strategic strike on the Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump has communicated a clear message to the Iranian Ayatollah: You have nowhere to go—either die for your ideology, or come back to the negotiating table in good faith. Through the bombing raid, Trump raised the stakes, signaling to Iran that continued nuclear defiance would lead to severe losses. Meanwhile, his rhetoric on “regime change” was criticized by some for sending mixed signals. But it was actually brilliant. (In the incoherent yet serious Trumpian manner). Let us explain.
Essentially all of international politics can be explained in terms of “Game Theory.” In a conflict such as this one, Game Theory dictates that each “player” will seek to maximize their payoff (security, power, or stability) while minimizing costs (war, economic isolation, or loss of face). The goal of each player is to shift the opponent’s ‘payoff matrix’, making defiance less attractive than cooperation.
The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and Trump’s rhetoric about regime change shifted Iran’s calculations such that their only option was compliance. They no longer have the threat of a nuclear arsenal with which to bargain, and Trump made clear he is willing to reluctantly but decisively intervene in the conflict (and facilitate regime change on behalf of the Iranian public) if Iran continues in its stubbornness. Yet he also offered a “Carrot” along with this “Stick”—posting “Make Iran Great Again” on Truth Social, and demonstrating that a compliant Iran can reap the economic benefits of abandoning their pro-terror ideology.
The Silver Lining
Predictably and annoyingly, we’ve already gotten word that both sides have (allegedly) breached the ceasefire—leading to questions about whether all parties’ motives are aligned. But that’s the beauty of the current situation. Through a peace deal, all sides will have gotten what they wanted. Or at least what they said they wanted. The Tucker Carlsons of the world can rest easy that zero American lives (and relatively few American dollars) have been lost in the conflict. Israelis can rest easy knowing that Iran will definitely not have the capability of nuking them into oblivion. And Iran’s Ayatollah can live out his remaining years as Iran’s Supreme Leader.
If any party remains unhappy, we’ll know the ‘reasons’ for their initial stance were largely pretextual—they actually wanted something else.
Isolationists like Jeffrey Sachs allege that the Interventionists’ Nuclear disarmament goal is a bad faith excuse for its actual intentions—to overthrow the Iranian government and thus remove the primary anti-Israeli force in the region. Supposedly, Israel has been systematically removing all unfriendly regimes in the region for the last 25+ years (Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan). Under this theory, Iran is the final name on Netanyahu’s ‘Bucket List of Terror.’
On the other side, the Isolationist wing has been accused of simply propping up Iran’s interests—with Tucker Carlson himself being called “Tucker Qatarlson”. Whether valid or not, it’s a great moniker. The claim is that some on the Isolationist side are not anti-war but actually anti-Jew—and that Muslim nations like Qatar have lobbied independent media outlets like Carlson’s to amplify anti-Israel sentiment.
And finally, we have the war-mongers—those like Fox News’ Mark Levin, a staunch ‘supporter’ of Israel and one of the Right’s most vocal supporters of intervention into the Israeli conflict. The claim from Tucker Carlson and others is that Levin and his ilk are not genuinely ‘Pro-Israel’, but are actually just hungry for yet another Middle Eastern conflict—desperate to reinvigorate the voracious Military Industrial Complex.
If a mutually beneficial peace deal is brokered, we’ll soon find out who the bad faith actors truly are. It’ll be those who remain unsatisfied.
We already saw a glimpse of this early this morning, when both Iran and Israel breached the ceasefire. Trump made clear his frustration with both parties. Trump’s uncharacteristic language (he dropped the “F” bomb—a relative rarity) implies that he isn’t taking sides anymore. Should Israel disrupt the deal, it’s possible American support may well be jeopardized in both the short- and long-term. Should Iran materially breach the deal, you can bet the Ayatollah will be back in his bunker before you can say “Overthrown”.
In related news, earlier today Fox News Commentator Mark Levin blasted Trump’s decision to implement a ceasefire…
The Art of the Deal
Trump has positioned himself in a no-lose situation. If Iran reneges on a peace deal, Trump will be justified in authorizing further US military intervention in the region, even among the Isolationist contingent of his MAGA base. If Israel breaches, Trump will capitalize on the growing domestic skepticism of Israeli-US relations and probably just ‘leave them to it’, without the United States’ military expenditures to prop them up.
Either way, no one is incentivized to be the ‘bad guy’.
If all goes as planned, Trump and MAGA, which appeared to be on the ropes just days ago, will have come out smelling like roses. Ted Cruz’s showdown with Tucker Carlson now appears to have been just a healthy disagreement between two sub-ideologies, each with a valid perspective on a complex issue. Israel will have repelled the specter of the mushroom cloud. Ayatollah Khamenei can continue telling his people that he had the West eating out of his hand. And everyone still hates the Neo-Cons.
And that, folks, is the Art of the Deal.
Nice summary. For all those screeching on both sides, just remember President Trump has more information about what’s going on and what’s at stake than any of these sideline quarterbacks. We elected Trump because we trust him to make the right decision and use his position and power to do so.
In my view as an old Jew who doesn’t know much I think the missing piece in this very interesting analysis is the nature of the Arab/islamist mind. I believe this analysis starts with the assumption that all the players are rational actors in a western sense. The mullahs are not rational actors. Among other things they come from a core belief that the death of any all infidels is a righteous act. And any lie is justified to obtain the death of infidels especially of course Jews and Christians. Therefore agreeing to a ceasefire is playing Trump. It is meaningless.