davidgillon | Dire Straits (of Hormuz)

I was reading a thread on a wargaming site about what's happening in the Straits of Hormuz and someone was protesting that Iran pushing the bounds of the nuclear agreement (they're resumed enrichment) was going to get them attacked, even if they hadn't been behind the tanker attacks, which struck me as assuming that being attacked was a negative for Iran. My reply turned into a bit of an epic, so I figure I might as well repeat it here/store it for future reference:

But would an attack be a negative for Iran? What happens if we let a little game theory loose on the potential outcomes?
(NB: Who carried out the tanker attacks isn't actually relevant to this, I'm open to several possibilities there)

Iran does nothing more, US does nothing more:
Effects: Iranian economy loses under economic sanctions.
Political Outcome: Iranian relations with allied factions either weakened or remain the same. Status quo outcome for IRGC, position/power not improved. US position not noticeably altered - everyone else still thinks "what the hell is he playing at?"

Iran does nothing more, US launches limited attack:
Effects: Iranian economy loses under economic sanctions, Iranian Navy suffers limited casualties, probably on the same order as Operation Praying Mantis*, IRGC suffers limited casualties it'll probably consider a plus.
Political Outcome: Iranian relations with allied factions either strengthened or remain the same - took on the Great Satan. Strongly positive for IRGC as their leash is likely to be loosened (or they'll do the loosening). Views of US worsened in non-aligned and allied nations - US/Trump acting as a loose cannon again (itself a weakly positive outcome for Iranian government)

Iran does nothing more, US launches major attack targeting nuclear facilities - attack is fully successful.
Effects: Iranian economy loses under economic sanctions, Iranian armed forces suffer limited losses, IRGC suffer limited losses. Iranian nuclear programme suffers serious losses.
Political Outcome: Iranian relations with allied factions strongly strengthened - victimised by the Great Satan. Very strongly positive for IRGC as they'll be in a position to demand their leash is loosened. Iranian nuclear programme suffers major setback, but nothing that hasn't happened before (Stuxnet). Views of US worsened in non-aligned and allied nations, "He did what?!" Views of US improved in Israel - did our job for us.

Iran does nothing more, US launches major attack targeting nuclear facilities - attack is partially successful.
Effects: Iranian economy loses under economic sanctions, Iranian armed forces suffer limited losses, IRGC suffer limited losses. Iranian nuclear programme suffers some losses.
Political Outcome: Iranian relations with allied factions very strongly strengthened - victimised by the Great Satan, who failed. Very strongly positive for IRGC as they'll be in a position to demand their leash is loosened, and the US military's reputation just took a hit. Iranian nuclear programme suffers minor setback, but Mossad causes those at least biannually. Views of US significantly worsened in non-aligned and allied nations, "He did what?! And he screwed it up?!?" Views of US somewhat improved in Israel - tried to do our job for us.

Iran does nothing more, US launches major attack targeting nuclear facilities - attack fails.
Effects: Iranian economy loses under economic sanctions, Iranian armed forces suffer limited losses, IRGC suffer limited losses. Iranian nuclear programme suffers no losses.
Political Outcome: Iranian relations with allied factions very strongly strengthened - victimised by the Great Satan, who utterly failed. Very strongly positive for IRGC as they'll be in a position to demand their leash is loosened, and the US forces reputation just took a major hit. Iranian nuclear programme has constraints removed. Views of US seriously worsened in non-aligned and allied nations, "He did what?! And he utterly screwed the pooch? Seriously!?!" Views of US worsened in Israel - should have left it for professionals like Heyl Ha Avir***.

Iran does nothing more, US calls for major campaign resulting in regime change.
Effects: US allies say no thanks, too soon after Iraq/Afghanistan and look how they went. US faced with doing it alone, JCS tell the President it's not feasible. Congress invokes War Powers Act.
Political Outcome: Iranian relations with allied factions very strongly strengthened - victimised by the Great Satan, who utterly failed. Strongly positive for IRGC as they'll be in a position to demand their leash is loosened, and the US forces reputation just took a major hit. Iranian nuclear programme has constraints removed. Views of US seriously worsened in non-aligned and allied nations, "What is he on?" Views of US seriously worsened in Israel - "Seriously? That was worse than doing nothing"

Now all of those potential outcomes include positives of some description for both the Iranian government and the IRGC, though the economy is screwed whatever they do.

If we change the Iranian response in each case to pushing the nuclear agreement, then in all cases the only changes are that 1) Iranian relations with Europe mildly worsen, but Europe hasn't been significantly helping their economy survive sanctions, so that isn't significant. 2) They're seen by allies to be giving US the finger, so positive politically and for IRGC. 3) The Iranian enriched uranium stockpile increases bringing the Iranian bomb one step closer - even in the worst case attack they'll probably only lose the non-enriched UF6 gas that's actively in the centrifuge cascades, it's difficult to physically damage a solid block of dense metal and we can presume they're dispersing it as much as is feasible.

If we change the Iranian response in each case to actual declared attacks then for the Iranian government it's politically somewhat better with allied factions, mildly negative with non-aligned nations (breaching International law, interfering with trade, OTOH took on US), strongly negative with US allies. For the IRGC it's significantly better with allied factions, somewhat negative with non-aligned nations, mildly negative with US allies (as its reputation can't really get worse). For the US it's a positive as it justifies their portrayal of Iran as the aggressor.

So doing nothing gives Iran a win. Pushing the nuclear agreement envelope gives Iran an equal or slightly better win. Launching attacks justifies the US position, so is a loss on the global stage for the Iranian government, but plays well to Iran's regional allies, and is potentially significantly better for the IRGC.

The only guaranteed loss scenario for Iran is agreeing to submit to US demands and dismantle their nuclear programme. Major loss of face on both the global and regional stages, humiliation for IRGC (which is dangerous for the Iranian government), and the need to justify throwing away the huge sunk cost of the nuclear programme. Plus handing victory to the Great Satan and Israel.

Essentially Trump has created a scenario in which the IRGC wins, or at worst doesn't lose, no matter what the US does, and the Iranian government probably wins whatever the US does, and even if it loses by launching attacks those may be necessary to keep the IRGC in check. The only US-win outcome requires the Iranian government to cut its own throat.

The danger here is Trump's ability/psychological imperative to rewrite personal failure as success.

* IRGC = Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps

** Operation Praying Mantis was the engagement between the USN and the Iranian Navy and IRGC on 18th April 1988. After a US frigate hit an Iranian mine, a US retaliatory strike on two Iranian oil platforms led to an escalating engagement that ended up with about a quarter of the Iranian Navy sunk and another quarter damaged. As the Iranian Navy has never been particularly strong that wasn't a major loss for Iran.

*** Heyl Ha Avir - Israeli Air Force