Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran’s future

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran’s future


What I’m going to try to do is explain to you quickly how to predict, and illustrate it with some predictions about what Iran is going to do in the next couple of years. In order to predict effectively, we need to use science. And the reason that we need to use science is because then we can reproduce what we’re doing; it’s not just wisdom or guesswork. And if we can predict, then we can engineer the future. So if you are concerned to influence energy policy, or you are concerned to influence national security policy, or health policy, or education, science — and a particular branch of science — is a way to do it, not the way we’ve been doing it, which is seat-of-the-pants wisdom. Now before I get into how to do it let me give you a little truth in advertising, because I’m not engaged in the business of magic. There are lots of thing that the approach I take can predict, and there are some that it can’t. It can predict complex negotiations or situations involving coercion — that is in essence everything that has to do with politics, much of what has to do with business, but sorry, if you’re looking to speculate in the stock market, I don’t predict stock markets — OK, it’s not going up any time really soon. But I’m not engaged in doing that. I’m not engaged in predicting random number generators. I actually get phone calls from people who want to know what lottery numbers are going to win. I don’t have a clue. I engage in the use of game theory, game theory is a branch of mathematics and that means, sorry, that even in the study of politics, math has come into the picture. We can no longer pretend that we just speculate about politics, we need to look at this in a rigorous way. Now, what is game theory about? It assumes that people are looking out for what’s good for them. That doesn’t seem terribly shocking — although it’s controversial for a lot of people — that we are self-interested. In order to look out for what’s best for them or what they think is best for them, people have values — they identify what they want, and what they don’t want. And they have beliefs about what other people want, and what other people don’t want, how much power other people have, how much those people could get in the way of whatever it is that you want. And they face limitations, constraints, they may be weak, they may be located in the wrong part of the world, they may be Einstein, stuck away farming someplace in a rural village in India not being noticed, as was the case for Ramanujan for a long time, a great mathematician but nobody noticed. Now who is rational? A lot of people are worried about what is rationality about? You know, what if people are rational? Mother Theresa, she was rational. Terrorists, they’re rational. Pretty much everybody is rational. I think there are only two exceptions that I’m aware of — two-year-olds, they are not rational, they have very fickle preferences, they switch what they think all the time, and schizophrenics are probably not rational, but pretty much everybody else is rational. That is, they are just trying to do what they think is in their own best interest. Now in order to work out what people are going to do to pursue their interests, we have to think about who has influence in the world. If you’re trying to influence corporations to change their behavior, with regard to producing pollutants, one approach, the common approach, is to exhort them to be better, to explain to them what damage they’re doing to the planet. And many of you may have noticed that doesn’t have as big an effect, as perhaps you would like it to have. But if you show them that it’s in their interest, then they’re responsive. So, we have to work out who influences problems. If we’re looking at Iran, the president of the United States we would like to think, may have some influence — certainly the president in Iran has some influence — but we make a mistake if we just pay attention to the person at the top of the power ladder because that person doesn’t know much about Iran, or about energy policy, or about health care, or about any particular policy. That person surrounds himself or herself with advisers. If we’re talking about national security problems, maybe it’s the Secretary of State, maybe it’s the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, maybe the ambassador to the United Nations, or somebody else who they think is going to know more about the particular problem. But let’s face it, the Secretary of State doesn’t know much about Iran. The secretary of defense doesn’t know much about Iran. Each of those people in turn has advisers who advise them, so they can advise the president. There are lots of people shaping decisions and so if we want to predict correctly we have to pay attention to everybody who is trying to shape the outcome, not just the people at the pinnacle of the decision-making pyramid. Unfortunately, a lot of times we don’t do that. There’s a good reason that we don’t do that, and there’s a good reason that using game theory and computers, we can overcome the limitation of just looking at a few people. Imagine a problem with just five decision-makers. Imagine for example that Sally over here, wants to know what Harry, and Jane, and George and Frank are thinking, and sends messages to those people. Sally’s giving her opinion to them, and they’re giving their opinion to Sally. But Sally also wants to know what Harry is saying to these three, and what they’re saying to Harry. And Harry wants to know what each of those people are saying to each other, and so on, and Sally would like to know what Harry thinks those people are saying. That’s a complicated problem; that’s a lot to know. With five decision-makers there are a lot of linkages — 120, as a matter of fact, if you remember your factorials. Five factorial is 120. Now you may be surprised to know that smart people can keep 120 things straight in their head. Suppose we double the number of influencers from five to 10. Does that mean we’ve doubled the number of pieces of information we need to know, from 120 to 240? No. How about 10 times? To 1,200? No. We’ve increased it to 3.6 million. Nobody can keep that straight in their head. But computers, they can. They don’t need coffee breaks, they don’t need vacations, they don’t need to go to sleep at night, they don’t ask for raises either. They can keep this information straight and that means that we can process the information. So I’m going to talk to you about how to process it, and I’m going to give you some examples out of Iran, and you’re going to be wondering, “Why should we listen to this guy? Why should we believe what he’s saying?” So I’m going to show you a factoid. This is an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency of the percentage of time that the model I’m talking about is right in predicting things whose outcome is not yet known, when the experts who provided the data inputs got it wrong. That’s not my claim, that’s a CIA claim — you can read it, it was declassified a while ago. You can read it in a volume edited by H. Bradford Westerfield, Yale University Press. So, what do we need to know in order to predict? You may be surprised to find out we don’t need to know very much. We do need to know who has a stake in trying to shape the outcome of a decision. We need to know what they say they want, not what they want in their heart of hearts, not what they think they can get, but what they say they want, because that is a strategically chosen position, and we can work backwards from that to draw inferences about important features of their decision-making. We need to know how focused they are on the problem at hand. That is, how willing are they to drop what they’re doing when the issue comes up, and attend to it instead of something else that’s on their plate — how big a deal is it to them? And how much clout could they bring to bear if they chose to engage on the issue? If we know those things we can predict their behavior by assuming that everybody cares about two things on any decision. They care about the outcome. They’d like an outcome as close to what they are interested in as possible. They’re careerists, they also care about getting credit — there’s ego involvement, they want to be seen as important in shaping the outcome, or as important, if it’s their druthers, to block an outcome. And so we have to figure out how they balance those two things. Different people trade off between standing by their outcome, faithfully holding to it, going down in a blaze of glory, or giving it up, putting their finger in the wind, and doing whatever they think is going to be a winning position. Most people fall in between, and if we can work out where they fall we can work out how to negotiate with them to change their behavior. So with just that little bit of input we can work out what the choices are that people have, what the chances are that they’re willing to take, what they’re after, what they value, what they want, and what they believe about other people. You might notice what we don’t need to know: there’s no history in here. How they got to where they are may be important in shaping the input information, but once we know where they are we’re worried about where they’re going to be headed in the future. How they got there turns out not to be terribly critical in predicting. I remind you of that 90 percent accuracy rate. So where are we going to get this information? We can get this information from the Internet, from The Economist, The Financial Times, The New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, lots of sources like that, or we can get it from asking experts who spend their lives studying places and problems, because those experts know this information. If they don’t know, who are the people trying to influence the decision, how much clout do they have, how much they care about this issue, and what do they say they want, are they experts? That’s what it means to be an expert, that’s the basic stuff an expert needs to know. Alright, lets turn to Iran. Let me make three important predictions — you can check this out, time will tell. What is Iran going to do about its nuclear weapons program? How secure is the theocratic regime in Iran? What’s its future? And everybody’s best friend, Ahmadinejad. How are things going for him? How are things going to be working out for him in the next year or two? You take a look at this, this is not based on statistics. I want to be very clear here. I’m not projecting some past data into the future. I’ve taken inputs on positions and so forth, run it through a computer model that had simulated the dynamics of interaction, and these are the simulated dynamics, the predictions about the path of policy. So you can see here on the vertical axis, I haven’t shown it all the way down to zero, there are lots of other options, but here I’m just showing you the prediction, so I’ve narrowed the scale. Up at the top of the axis, “Build the Bomb.” At 130, we start somewhere above 130, between building a bomb, and making enough weapons-grade fuel so that you could build a bomb. That’s where, according to my analyses, the Iranians were at the beginning of this year. And then the model makes predictions down the road. At 115 they would only produce enough weapons grade fuel to show that they know how, but they wouldn’t build a weapon: they would build a research quantity. It would achieve some national pride, but not go ahead and build a weapon. And down at 100 they would build civilian nuclear energy, which is what they say is their objective. The yellow line shows us the most likely path. The yellow line includes an analysis of 87 decision makers in Iran, and a vast number of outside influencers trying to pressure Iran into changing its behavior, various players in the United States, and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Russia, European Union, Japan, so on and so forth. The white line reproduces the analysis if the international environment just left Iran to make its own internal decisions, under its own domestic political pressures. That’s not going to be happening, but you can see that the line comes down faster if they’re not put under international pressure, if they’re allowed to pursue their own devices. But in any event, by the end of this year, beginning of next year, we get to a stable equilibrium outcome. And that equilibrium is not what the United States would like, but it’s probably an equilibrium that the United States can live with, and that a lot of others can live with. And that is that Iran will achieve that nationalist pride by making enough weapons-grade fuel, through research, so that they could show that they know how to make weapons-grade fuel, but not enough to actually build a bomb. How is this happening? Over here you can see this is the distribution of power in favor of civilian nuclear energy today, this is what that power block is predicted to be like by the late parts of 2010, early parts of 2011. Just about nobody supports research on weapons-grade fuel today, but by 2011 that gets to be a big block, and you put these two together, that’s the controlling influence in Iran. Out here today, there are a bunch of people — Ahmadinejad for example — who would like not only to build a bomb, but test a bomb. That power disappears completely; nobody supports that by 2011. These guys are all shrinking, the power is all drifting out here, so the outcome is going to be the weapons-grade fuel. Who are the winners and who are the losers in Iran? Take a look at these guys, they’re growing in power, and by the way, this was done a while ago before the current economic crisis, and that’s probably going to get steeper. These folks are the moneyed interests in Iran, the bankers, the oil people, the bazaaries. They are growing in political clout, as the mullahs are isolating themselves — with the exception of one group of mullahs, who are not well known to Americans. That’s this line here, growing in power, these are what the Iranians call the quietists. These are the Ayatollahs, mostly based in Qom, who have great clout in the religious community, have been quiet on politics and are going to be getting louder, because they see Iran going in an unhealthy direction, a direction contrary to what Khomeini had in mind. Here is Mr. Ahmadinejad. Two things to notice: he’s getting weaker, and while he gets a lot of attention in the United States, he is not a major player in Iran. He is on the way down. OK, so I’d like you to take a little away from this. Everything is not predictable: the stock market is, at least for me, not predictable, but most complicated negotiations are predictable. Again, whether we’re talking health policy, education, environment, energy, litigation, mergers, all of these are complicated problems that are predictable, that this sort of technology can be applied to. And the reason that being able to predict those things is important, is not just because you might run a hedge fund and make money off of it, but because if you can predict what people will do, you can engineer what they will do. And if you engineer what they do you can change the world, you can get a better result. I would like to leave you with one thought, which is for me, the dominant theme of this gathering, and is the dominant theme of this way of thinking about the world. When people say to you, “That’s impossible,” you say back to them, “When you say ‘That’s impossible,’ you’re confused with, ‘I don’t know how to do it.'” Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: One question for you. That was fascinating. I love that you put it out there. I got very nervous halfway through the talk though, just panicking whether you’d included in your model, the possibility that putting this prediction out there might change the result. We’ve got 800 people in Tehran who watch TEDTalks. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita: I’ve thought about that, and since I’ve done a lot of work for the intelligence community, they’ve also pondered that. It would be a good thing if people paid more attention, took seriously, and engaged in the same sorts of calculations, because it would change things. But it would change things in two beneficial ways. It would hasten how quickly people arrive at an agreement, and so it would save everybody a lot of grief and time. And, it would arrive at an agreement that everybody was happy with, without having to manipulate them so much — which is basically what I do, I manipulate them. So it would be a good thing. CA: So you’re kind of trying to say, “People of Iran, this is your destiny, lets go there.” BBM: Well, people of Iran, this is what many of you are going to evolve to want, and we could get there a lot sooner, and you would suffer a lot less trouble from economic sanctions, and we would suffer a lot less fear of the use of military force on our end, and the world would be a better place. CA: Here’s hoping they hear it that way. Thank you very much Bruce. BBM: Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicts Iran’s future

  1. Such an unbelievable amount of ignorance.

    – There was no 'assassination' of any Iranian leader – there was a coup engineered by UK/US with the HELP of Iranians that brought the shah back in power.

    – The nuclear program was STARTED UNDER THE SHAH AND NOT THE MULLAHS. It's not 'their' project.'

    – nobody is asking them to give it up, people just want to make sure the nutcases leading that country won''t develop nuclear weapons.

    Unplug the internet and go read something useful.

  2. Also, the revolution was in 79, not 78. And the last thing on the clerics' mind was 'energy independence', they stopped the nculear program and started it later – and NOT for energy indepdendent. Iran is already and always has been energy independent you imbecile.

    and that 'incentive' is removing sanctions and allowing iran to develop and fix its myriad problems like a normal nation instead of isolating itself in a corner shouting death to this or that.

  3. Last thing I'll add, while I'm not a fan of the shah, 'nazi' here applies better to the barbarians ruling iran and other muslim countries.

  4. the shah was associated with nazis, muslim people you just generalised 1,68 billion of us aren't nazis. The biggest nazis around are the financial elite who then as now finance fascism be it in nazi germany or in china today. Lets also not forget the majority of these finance elites are ashkeNAZI jews. If one could call them jews. I ask anyone reading this to consider the history of the Rothschilds, the infamous family who were behind so many wars and economic manipulation.

  5. 9/11 = Reichtag fire
    Iraq = Poland
    USD = Reich Mark about to collapse.
    Never again my ass, care to guess who the persecuted jews are this time around? Muslims. All monotheist religion in general but mainly Islam. Our oppression can simply be explained by economy & geo politics, we are around 60 nations with 65% of all oil and 70% of all gas and every other resource, more populous than China, vast coastline & airspace, our unity stand in the way of their one world plan.

  6. @holo19
    If you only knew what i'd give to know a fraction of what Hitler knew before he took off. I am not mocking him. Nevertheless answer me this, who was Hitlers father?
    Didn't Hitlers grandmother become pregnant while working as a servant in a Viennese family . . . And the family . . . was none other than that of Baron Rothschild

  7. @AlbertInSanAntonio All Im going to say is that I guess this prediction about Iran has fallen into the %10 category.

    Also I think a decent advisor/expert can make prediction with a higher than 90% accuracy. Its very questionable how you measure the accuracy anyway.

  8. Game theory is not as easy as one thinks… how did a politics professor get the mathematical background to make predictions using sophisticated game theory? However, this guy deserve some credit… for having the courage to do this.

  9. Game theory is not as easy as one thinks… how did a politics professor get the mathematical background to make predictions using sophisticated game theory? However, this guy deserve some credit… for having the courage to do this.

  10. @granddaddyflapjacks Actually Dr. Bueno de Mesquita is a preeminent political scientist who is an expert in international relations. He has a game theoretical model that is the basis of his predictions. I will agree that Dr. Bueno de Mesquita does pose problems scientifically due to the lack of him showing his methodology. However, my understanding is that his model is used by the likes of the CIA for predictive purposes, and he has a proprietary hold on the model.

  11. As such, testability is problematic. Nobody can attempt to test his predictions because his model is not publicly known. Nevertheless, the CIA is using his game theoretical model, so I suspect there is some merit to his research.

  12. @Stallkyr
    maybe he's useful to the CIA(if it is even true that they use him) for propaganda reasons.If you are in the intelligence business it would be helpful to make people believe you are all knowing and all powerful even if you are not. As a scientist myself, this talk made very little sense to me (especially where goes on about factorials), is very hand wavy and contains nothing of real substance just pretty graphs. Also none of this work seems to be published in any peer-reviewed journal.

  13. @Stallkyr
    Also, in my experience, you do come across quite a few quacks in academia in surprisingly high positions – especially in fields where mathematically able people mix with not so mathematically able people.

    I find it very very hard to believe his claims. It all sounds too good to be true and it probably is.

  14. @Stallkyr and did the CIA's use of this method prevent 9/11, London's 7/7, Madrid's 3/1.. This man is hoax hiding behind his useless PH.D and cashing in on it.

  15. looks like zionist paid pig, what prediction he will do about palastinian genicide.Doe s this funny game theory can predict if some palastinians still will be living in that geto called Gaza? This guy is really a pathcy, acually Ahmadi Nejad became more popular since this funny prediction.

  16. It's actually quite simple. All he's doing is taking the latter two of his four elements of policy making (how focused and how much) and multiplying them together. Say if Ahmadinejad has 5% influence on the policy making process and is 70% focused on it and he wants to build a nuclear weapon then he gets a rating of 0.035 (0.05 x 0.70). Then he does that same step for the others in power and assumes that the highest rating will be the real life outcome. He's a sociologist not a mathematician.

  17. This guy actually predicted correctly. However, the threat still exists. Its not about building the bomb, they might try to sell it, or give it to its proxy militias.

    Nowadays, I don't even hear about Iran in the news. Either because the west isn't worried about it anymore, or that the revolutions were more notable to report.

    And did anyone notice that any discussion on Youtube about Iran attracts people who talks about Israel-Palestanian problems when the video has nothing to do with it?

  18. The time is coming when no respectable subject will be approachable without a strong math background. I knew my elementary school teachers were wrong and jealous when they said any approach is equally valid!

  19. @LotusHacker What's funny is how America media needs to misquote Ahmadinejad and exaggerate facts about Iran to gain support for their Zionist views.

  20. @imRyRy

    that's even funnier. Really I had no idea America is "Zionist." Look up the word before you use it in your anti-Israel anti-America or anti-West mantra.

  21. @LotusHacker Your insults only hinder your credibility. You hide behind them instead of using arguments. I can even provide an example of media lies over Ahmadinejad. Once he said that "the zionist regime will end", just as "soviet russia did". The media turned this into "Israel will be wiped off the map!!". Now, are you going to provide a counter-argument, or more insults? 🙂

  22. @imRyRy

    just as Ahmadinejad totally doesn't think the holocaust was staged. I guess he never said “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" eh? Israel isn't a communist country and the country itself isn't simply a form of government. That's like saying Russia itself is going to crumble. Back to the point, Iran has moved its fuel production to underground military facilities. That totally does not sound like they're trying to build weapons either.

  23. @Arianiuss

    lol @ the ghetto called gaza. like the ghettos called jordan and the palestinian territories? the funny thing about arabs is that they think they can call people pigs after they spread out hate against any group of people and call it justifiable. you better search for a better vocabulary, friend.

  24. @imRyRy

    maybe, maybe not. and israel probably has that capability but if something like that happened I doubt Israel would be in any great condition if ya know what i mean. and we were arguing whether or not Iran WANTED nuclear weapons. considering what Ahmadinejad has said about Israel and Jews and that Hamas was acquiring Iranian Grad rockets (as well as from other places), he totally wants those weapons.

  25. @LotusHacker – The US is zionist as all hell. AIPAC, ADL, all are tied to the highest levels of our govt. We send them at least $3BILLION every year, and we make sure they are always the best armed "nation" in the middle east. All due to the fairytales in the bible calling them the "chosen people". lmao. What a joke. We need to cut off their allowance and let them fend for themselves.

  26. Who: F-35
    Do they say what they want: YES Asymmetric war anywhere anytime
    HOW focused: 49miles away can hit a window zero collateral damage
    How much persuasive power: Unlimited plus 1 Trillion invested (Lockheed and DoD)
    Outcome: Ground Zero Ocean
    Operation Iranian Liberation (O.I.L.) COMING SOON !

  27. It's actually the cloak or guise of religion being used as the tool for military effectiveness, if you want get right down to it. Think we agree on that.

  28. Some complaints: He has several contracts with the CIA so any accuracy rate published by the CIA has a conflict of interest.
    He said the stock market wouldn't go up anytime soon, even though it has gone up since 2009.
    If his models are so great why didn't it predict the economic collapse?

  29. He says in the video he doesn't have the ability to predict the stock market…… he could probably predict specifics if he knew the players. That's how the models work. The CIA only did the studies AFTER ignoring them when he was right and they wouldn't listen. At the time, their interest was in finding AGAINST his models. He studies the effects likely to result from policy and determines when and how they can be influenced.

  30. Why doesn't he open he release his formulas for peer review? In any science peer review is important and this guy won't allow it.

  31. A somehow biased prediction.. His original datas r not covering all the game.. for example hes not considering the growing number of religious pple who support Iran by showing up in the 22 bahmans demonstration..

  32. Iran dangers world … Iran killed 66,645,660 gay men in 1980s…. but blamed it on aids… Iran caused Sandy hurricane … Sandy code for SAND .. Sand of Iran… terrorism by weather…. Iran killed Jews in Germany , blamed it on Hitler.. Iran did the 9/11, blamed it on Zionists …. Iran caused  WW1 & WW2 ,but blamed it on Germany … Iran nuked Japan , invaded Vietnam & Panama  but blamed USA, .. Now Iran wish move Israel to sea too… NO… we smart people must stop mullahs of Iran

  33. People who had sat and watched this profesional zionist lie must feel real stupid now in 2014…… But maybe not since they are too stupid to get the lie ….

  34. It is interesting to note I am writing this and it is almost 2015 and all of this person's predictions have failed or are incorrect. Iran is a failed state. It's cities are warzones. What will the world do if Iran can proclaim "leave us alone we now have a nuke"??

  35. So it's been now more than 6 years since this talk and guess what we did reach an agreement and now your Congress is killing the Iran deal….. talk about being condescending you didn't even take in consideration the most important factor in decision making in Iran : the PEOPLE!!!!! because you are incapable of understanding the fact that people in other countries (yes even in Iran) are an important part of the process of deciding their own faith and they are way more educated and sophisticated than you think !!!!
    We voted for president Rouhani in Iran and those votes made the Iran deal possible and now your president is struggling to make your bonehead Neocons and Republicans understand why is it a good thing that we (as humans!) are avoiding more wars…..!!! I'm afraid if you don't wake up soon you soon will have a President in America that makes Ahmadinejad look like Gandhi!!!! (little hint he has an awkward wig !!!!)

  36. This "good guy syndrome" which the US operates under and pedals to its citizens, is distorted and perverted information. We premise they are evil and we are benevolent…on that premise, everyone is suspect and we are to be weary of everyone else…when the fact is, it is our own leaders who seek conflict and war and continued domination over others…that is thee doctrine of P.N.A.C.

  37. Fiddling one or more elements of the game ( PARTS : Players, Added value, Rules, Tactics and Scope) changes the game the way we expect.

  38. His prediction for the dates he gave where exact. You can hate the guy but he has a good system to predict political decisions.

  39. How one can know a Jew, they are marginal, they do not participate in democracy but they enjoy democracy without being able to be an honest citizen and they are obliged to live by playing a role without ever being himself and pushing others towards miseres like Lybia, syria and iran and the Africans and Americans

  40. They only manipulated using game theory those responsible for making the decision and moved the bomb to a slightly warmer place, a more Caribbean site, out of reach of Israel and without the necessary technology to be fully developed.

  41. to myself : don't read the comments don't read the comments don't read the comments don't read the comments don't read the comments

  42. I think he does not make a prediction on Iran policy, but he predict US's on Iran. Well he doesn't need such simulation, game, model or math protocol…because nothing change in US policy for last 200 years.

  43. well its 2018 now and i havent heard aboout this conflict between "quite mullah" and "ali khamenei"
    almost 9 years are over and khamenei is still the Leader of the Iran, so what is this guy talking about?!

  44. It's 2018 now, with all the odds against Iran, Iran has managed to drill a big hole in the greater Israel project, i wounder if this zionist has done any calculations on the future of the Apartheid zionist state of Israel for the next four years ????????

  45. Just exactly when did America worry about Iranians so they could suffer less than they have in the hands of Americans? Americans, including you, are so self-centered and egotistical that they don't even recognize the ligitimacy of the International Court of Justice because America is held, in their own eyes, above the law! Now, how do you predict what Donald would do when he constantly lies about everything. Would you predict that he would lie again? Use a little bit of your "game theory" to help yourself in this difficult prediction.

  46. Us and them; and after all, we're only ordinary men. Me and you; and who knows which is which, or who is who? With, without; it can't be helped, but there's a lot of it about…

  47. it's 2019 and we're going to 40th year of our Revolution from 1979. i think world can be better if U.S stop killing in M.E

  48. Id love to see this theory used in a revisionist example on how the nazis got into power .. The current Iranian system reminds me of the Communist system in the old USSR they are both in power nearly the same time line since the cold war ended but its what comes after would be interesting as we see after the fall of the old USSR Putin followed and he for me is far more dangerous as he has the cult of the supreme leader as Hitler had .

  49. No wonder American policy is in such a mess! devising such simplistic models and making laughable predictions in the name of science is preposterous to say the least. Game theory almost resulted in world-war III back in the 60s (the cuban crisis). His conclusions are so general and obvious that one would have heard by simply sitting in a taxi in Tehran in 2009. On a positive note, I tend to agree with him that everyone is a rational player except a two year old and anyone suffering from a serious mental illness. Both characteristics are present in US administration for a few decades now. We need a new mathematics for non-rational players.

  50. The "ayatollah" business is slowly disappearing. They are an old mentality by a bunch of very old men who practice a buncha crap that no one really believes in anymore. Today's Iran is for the young and vibrant – all of them learning day by day more from instagram about the real world out there. Mathematically, the ayatollahs gotta go.

  51. I see iran conquering Washington dc and new York their two enemies in the united states . they are the two enemies of the rest of the united states as well.

  52. the united states stealing from me was the biggest mistake in our entire countries history, I earned whats mine, to steal from those bwho earn it is slavery, trust me when I tell you that you havr no power compared with me the leader of the free world.

  53. Sammy konyn I am going to kill you the next time I see you, I will club your face with my fist until you are fucking dead you fucking coward, you are a fucking dead man, your wife killed herself reading my messages

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *