When Donald Trump claims that "Iran no longer needs an intermediary" and is ready for direct negotiations with the US, it may seem at first glance that the tense atmosphere is easing and perhaps an opening is on the way. However, if we analyze these developments within the framework of game theory, instead of oversimplifying intentions, we should focus on analyzing strategies. In this framework, negotiation is not a "card," but rather the platform and stage where cards are displayed, and players try to gain the maximum possible score through clever play.
Playing Cards: Numerical or Weighted Superiority?
In this game, Iran holds cards such as its unique geopolitical position, influence in the resistance axis, a reversible nuclear program, the ability to strike back, influence over energy flows, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and active relationships with China and Russia. In contrast, the US has cards like widespread economic sanctions, global financial dominance, Israeli threats, traditional alliances, and media and military tools. However, the crucial point is that the power of play is not just about the number of cards, but about the "timing," "combination," and "opportune use" of cards. Iran has managed to increase the weight of its cards by using a combination of strategic silence, diplomatic maneuvering, and targeted military posturing.
On the other hand, Trump is trying to activate his psychological and diplomatic cards – such as inviting direct negotiations while making verbal threats – to launch a "compressed psychological game." He wants to draw Iran into a negotiating field where the rules have already been defined by the White House. This is exactly where game theory goes beyond "interaction" and reaches "game design."
Closed Paths, Open Gates
Within the framework of this game, Iran's move to accept indirect negotiations is a multi-layered signal. On one hand, it indicates that Iran is still present at the negotiating table and willing to play on the diplomatic field. On the other hand, by refusing to accept the rules imposed by Trump, Iran has defined an "in-game cost" for Washington. This is the point where the American side cannot force Iran to play by its own script simply by relying on threats and pressure.
In this arena, negotiations for Iran are not a field for concessions, but a stage for exploiting other cards. Tehran, by carefully assessing the playing field and evaluating the behavior of other players - including Netanyahu, the Zionist lobby, Trump's domestic opponents, and Arab countries - seeks to make any concessions conditional on the combination of actions taken by the opposing side. The successful progression of this game is achieved through superiority in logic, not slogans.
Israel: An Effective Card or Rule-Setter?
Netanyahu's frequent trips to the US, attempts to revive the military option, and creation of a psychological atmosphere against Iran can be part of a complementary game. Although Netanyahu always tries to disrupt the rules of the diplomatic game between Iran and the US and adjust the playing field to his advantage, if we consider Israel as an effective card in the game designed by the US, Netanyahu's presence in Washington at the same time as Trump's claim about secret negotiations suggests that the US is redefining its lines of contact and rearranging its cards.
However, what distinguishes Tehran is its ability to maintain a strategic position in the negotiating field without premature entry or playing on others' turf. The impact of Tehran's cards lies not necessarily in action, but in "measured and delayed reaction" in suitable conditions. In game theory, this behavioral model allows the player to gain the most from the opponent's mistakes or impatience with minimal action.
A Chessboard or a Zero-Sum Game?
This game, contrary to public perception, is not a zero-sum game. The goal of both sides is to achieve a combination of "security," "credibility," and "economic interests," but the path to achieving this differs from each side's perspective. Trump wants negotiations to complete his maximum pressure project, while Iran sees them as a means to reduce pressure without surrender.
In such circumstances, the winning player is not the one with the most cards, but the one who better designs, manages, and executes the rules of the game. Tehran is currently redesigning the playing field - a field where direct negotiations are not the end of the game, but just another move on the complex chessboard.
NOURNEWS