TEHRAN – The reported U.S. refusal to present a written plan in five rounds of talks with Iran is part of a complex strategy based on game theory. According to this strategy, Washington, while maintaining ambiguity and without accepting responsibility, tries to unilaterally rewrite the rules of the game and keep its outcome in a halo of uncertainty. 

Reports suggest that five rounds of indirect talks between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman, have passed without the United States submitting a single written proposal, while Iran, according to official announcements, has put a written and specific plan on the table to advance the talks.

Contrary to the rules governing game theory, the United States, by refusing to define fixed rules, seeks to transform this game into an open game with variable rules in order to maintain ambiguity and put itself in a position where it can leave the field of play at any moment or throw the ball into Iran's court.

But in contrast, Iran has attempted to steer the game toward a "closed game with a specific strategy" by presenting a specific plan so that each side, while being committed and accountable, is forced to pay the political and legal cost of their behavior and decisions.

In fact, instead of taking responsibility, exchanging concessions, and accepting strategic costs, Washington behaves in a way that allows it to simultaneously handle several scenarios without accepting any commitment to any of them.

This pattern is reminiscent of tactical behaviors in which an actor tries to disrupt the decision-making power of the other side by hiding its goal, plan, and priorities, while Iran tries to move the game from a "floating" to a "symmetrical" form by presenting a specific offer.

But what is the strategic goal of the U.S. with this behavioral pattern?

- To create an image of “diplomatic mobility” in the eyes of the public. As Trump said, “Serious progress has been made in the dialogue with Iran.” While no documents have been provided.

- To test Iran’s behavior without paying, or “free modeling” of Tehran’s reactions.

- Maintaining the upper hand in the game with "zero commitment" and remaining in the negotiation without entering into legally or politically binding levels.

This lawless and ambiguous game not only is not a temporary tactic, but also part of the U.S. "swing strategy" through which Washington, due to its technical and legal incompetence in the negotiating room, tries to increase its power of maneuver.