The recent IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program has set off an interesting series of international political moves. In a way, these events challenge my concept of competition in general, but we'll get to that later.
From Iran, we see the now typical "America is plotting against us" response, reminiscent of their statements regarding the revealed plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to the U.S. of about a month ago. Interestingly, the report has given Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad something to agree on (America-bashing), despite rising tensions between the two major figures of the Iranian government.
On the other hand, from Israel comes a subtle hint of potential military action against the threat of an Iran armed with nuclear warheads and the technology to deliver them. Israeli leaders have made no official declarations of an intent to invade Iran, but rhetoric has been far from reassuring.
What's interesting about this little game is that the incentives of the players are not clear, at least to me. If Iran really is nourishing a nuke somewhere in the country, why do they continue to deny it? They have stated that if it was their intent to build a bomb, they would do so regardless of the international community's meddling. If they actually do build one now and announce it, they are dealing a significant blow to their diplomatic credibility. What's the point of building the thing if a.) using it or even declaring its existence will significantly lower your standing among the international community and b.) the firepower it grants you will simply increase tensions with neighboring Arab states to a fever pitch, perhaps starting an arms race which might result in an overwhelmingly nuclear and volatile Middle East.
Israel also baffles me with its hints of invasion. Given their current conflict with Palestinians, it hardly seems to be in their interest to enter an all out war with Iran. Perhaps these insinuations are simply meant to encourage further sanctions against the Islamic Republic from other powers, but that doesn't seem to be biting with everyone.
Lacking a clear understanding of Iranian and Israeli politics, history, and domestic leadership, I am left wondering at the incentives behind their current actions. If I view their acts as moves made in an international competition, I arrive at an interesting conclusion. That is, incentives are inherently assumed in and essential to any forms of competitiveness. Perhaps this is an observation which could've been made by a 1st grader, but I find its simplicity to be very important. Without an understanding of underlying motives, competition is just chaos, but by articulating our rationale for doing things, we can create new meanings for the same words and change "doing" into "competing." This is how a term like "swimmer" attains the attached meaning of "competitive swimmer," because when you say "he's a swimmer," the most reasonable role that comes to mind is that of someone who swims to win, or compete, not some oddball who constantly lives in a lake.
This has been a quirky train of thought to wrap my mind around.
No comments:
Post a Comment