Middle Eastern Paranoia, Oil, and the Psychology of Playing Chicken

HOME

|

SPEAKING  |  SELF-TESTS

|  ABOUT

|  PRESS

|  CHARTS

|  TOOLS

Now for our specialty - the psychological context.  Keep in mind that excessive fear is paranoia, and paranoia is one of the most powerful types of fears, bolstered by one's own feeling of isolation and often leading to self-destruction (e.g., Othello).  Paranoia is present to varying degrees in most people - given that 15% of prehistoric humans met a violent death at the hands of another human, paranoia was an adaptive trait on an individual level.  As strange as it may sound, through the emotional defense mechanism of projective identification the paranoid often induce others to treat them harshly or suspiciously.  Yet on a population level, group paranoia often leads to irrationality and atrocities against the feared others through this same process of projective identification.

image removed

The Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew a British and American "stooge" - a monarchy placed in power by the CIA and MI6 in 1953 by overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister.  Iranians rightfully see themselves as past victims of American meddling, and the regime does not trust the U.S., Israel, or Britain.  Iranian propagandists go so far as to portray Israelis, British, and Americans as sub-human, referring to them as "dogs" and "infidels."  Is the Iranian leadership paranoid about U.S. and Israeli intentions?  From our perspective, of course.  Might their paranoia drive them to develop the very nuclear bomb we are paranoid about them possessing?  Yes, definitely, wouldn't you want maximum deterrence against a proven enemy too?

 

 

 

See the image above of a mural from outside the former American embassy in Tehran.  One of the requirements in paranoid terrorist psychology is to dehumanize the opponent, so normal human empathy is turned off.  Predictor of action:  If you don't see another as human, you can hurt them with no sense of remorse (in fact, you feel righteous to do so because you are protecting your group).

 

Yet Israelis see an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat (and the Iranian leadership has said as much).  Given Israel's history of near-annihilation on multiple occasions (not irrational paranoia), the military is not relaxed about this threat.  Predictor of action:  When backed into a corner, no option is off the table. 

In a startling twist of fate, the father of Game Theory involving multiple equilibria in noncooperative games was John Nash, subject of the Academy Award-winning move A Beautiful Mind.  Nash is a mathematical genius who won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Economics for his contributions to the field.  However, in his early 20s he developed paranoid schizophrenia and spent many years in institutions. 

 

During the U.S. debt ceiling stalement in July 2011, University of Washington Professor David P. Barash wrote an op-ed in the New York Times explaining the game theory behind the show-down over raising the debt ceiling.  Many of his examples are illustrative of what the West is facing with Iran.

 

Dr, Barash explains that by playing chicken (as the Tea-partiers appeared to be doing over the debt ceiling talks) low-power players can extract additional concessions due to their "hardliner" stance.  As he puts it, "The trick to winning is for one player to convince the other that under no circumstance will he or she veer off course."  Dr. Barash continues, "Another tactic, favored by the strategist Herman Kahn, is to "throw out the steering wheel," to demonstrate that you are locked into a certain path and can't swerve. "

 

In such cases of playing chicken, it is best to convince your opponent that either 1) you have no alternative course of action and so CANNOT compromise ("my constituents won't let me back down"), or 2) you are stone-cold crazy and could care less about the consequences to yourself ("I will take you down with me if that's how it has to be!").  Both of these strategies increase the negotiating power of a lesser player, but they also presume a rational analysis of the situation by that player.  Sometimes your opponent truly is suicide-bomber-crazy, and you will always lose when playing chicken with such an opponent (as will they, but they won't care). 

 

The strategy Dr. Barash concludes with is the following:  "In either case, whether you're confronting a rogue elephant or a rogue nuclear state, the advice is the same: stop playing the game. Avoid the elephant or shoot it; politically isolate the rogue state or use military force to disarm it."

 

So how do you know whether your opponent is strategically crazy as in the first two cases or crazy-crazy like a suicide bomber? (See Dr. Barash's article or book to learn more).  In the case of Iran, the key question is, is the leadership acting strategically to increase their bargaining power, increase their esteem among their own people, and perhaps even earn the international perks and payoffs that North Korea (food aid, energy shipments) and Pakistan (military "aid" and free cash) have earned?  This seems plausible enough, but before moving on, we need to determine if the leadership of Iran is truly crazy.

 

Aside from a perhaps justified paranoia about foreign invasion, Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian leadership has excellent hygiene and don't apparently speak to themselves in public.  However, the leadership is generally comprised of lifelong religious scholars, and given the sometimes thin psychic line between communicating with Angels and believing the CIA is following you, this might actually be worrisome.  But wait, the CIA is following them.  In any case, what evidence is there for leadership insanity?  None of which I am aware, although very clever people such as Stanford's Robert Sapolsky have noted fascinating parallels.

 

So the first preferred strategy when dealing with such an opponent is to politically and economically isolate the country (done).  Given the history of paranoia and poor relations between Iran and the West, and the absence of a legitimate political alternative to Ayatollah Khamenei and the Grand Council, it's likely that isolation will not bring down the Iranian government.   If isolation doesn't work - and how long will we wait? - then either ignoring Iran (e.g., North Korea and Cuba) or a military assault (nuclear sites bombed by Israel in Iraq and Syria) is likely. 

 

To prepare for a military assault, bolder internal attacks and discord-sowing are already occurring.  Then the choice becomes to either 1) Ignore Iran's nuclear program and hope for a Cold War-style stalemate, or 2) execute a series of focused military attacks to further delay the program.  Given Israel's existential angst and previous history of striking Syria and Iraq, military assault in 3-4 months (barring inspection concessions by Iran) appears most likely, with a limited and localized conflict resulting (Iran will need to save face).

 

This material is not intended as and does not constitute an offer to sell any securities or a solicitation of any offer to purchase any securities. 

 

The information of the MarketPsych Report is presented free of charge.  It is no substitute for the services of a professional investment advisor.  Investments recommended may not be appropriate for all investors.  Recommendations are made without consideration of your financial sophistication, financial situation, investing time horizon, or risk tolerance.  Readers are urged to consult with their own independent financial advisers with respect to any investment.

 

THIS ADVICE IS WORTH WHAT YOU PAID FOR IT (FREE = NOTHING). 

 

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.  Screen and model signals and related analysis are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities.  Most financial instruments (stocks, bonds, funds) carry risk to principal and are not insured by the government.  Anyone using this newsletter for investment purposes does so at his or her own risk.

 

Data accuracy cannot be guaranteed.  Opinions and analyses included herein are based on sources believed to be reliable and written in good faith, but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to their accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correctness. We are not liable for any errors or inaccuracies, regardless of cause, or for the lack of timeliness of, or for any delay or interruptions in, the transmission thereof to the users.

 

As a matter of policy, we may act upon the investment information that this newsletter provides prior to making it available to the public.  We do not accept compensation of any kind from any companies mentioned herein.

 

MarketPsych is not responsible for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages that may result from the use of, or the inability to use, the Information contained on this newsletter whether the Information is provided or otherwise supplied by MarketPsych or anyone else. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall MarketPsych total liability to you for any and all claims, damages, losses, and causes of action (whether in contract or tort or otherwise) exceed the amount paid by you, if any, for accessing this newsletter.

 

MarketPsych expressly disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to the Web sites, their Content, and the Information, including, without limitation, all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, and non-infringement. By using the Web site, Content, and Information, I assume all of the risks associated with their use, and I release and agree to indemnify and hold harmless MarketPsych from any and all liability, claims for damages, and losses arising from or connected with such risks.

 

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OR FIND ANY OF THEM TO BE UNACCEPTABLE, SIMPLY UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE EMAIL LIST. If you understand and accept these caveats, feel free to read the newsletter.