Chaos Report: Is World War 3 Upon Us? A Game Theory Analysis

The international order as we know it has already collapsed, replaced by an international disorder that is in complete free fall. The horrifying events of the past few years, especially in the last 12 months—from Gaza and Ukraine to Pakistan and beyond—are a clear testament to this fact.

But is World War III officially upon us?

Let’s conduct a game theory analysis of the current crisis to gauge whether these events are leading us toward World War III—something none of us hoped to witness in our lifetime, given that the horrors of World War II are still fresh in our collective memory.

I will use five key metrics to assess the possibility of a World War 3:

1. Context - Is the timing right?

The primary context is the upcoming U.S. elections in November, which will shape the outcome of this crisis. Another significant context is the ongoing war in Ukraine and the growing concern among Western powers over China’s rise. Lastly, global economic conditions and market fluctuations play an important role in evaluating the potential for World War III.

Given the fluid state of global politics and the timing of elections, it does not seem like a prime moment for a full-scale global war.

2. Intent - Do the players really want it?

To validate the "Context," let’s examine the intent of the key players. Neither Israel nor Iran, especially, appears interested in a full-scale war. This is because the regimes in both countries stand to lose immensely from an uncontrollable conflict. Iran has demonstrated no intention to escalate the situation for over the last 1 year, and it is unlikely to change the policy now. As I previously wrote, Iran’s key interest a low intensity warfare and face saving when it escalated. Same for Israel, despite its reckless assault on Gaza and Lebanon and targeted attacks in Tehran, it has shown its capabilities but not intention to go on a full out war with Iran.

In the absence of intent to pursue full-scale war, the risk of World War III becomes minimal.

3. Power Balance - Can the players really fight it?

There is also the question of power balance. Do Israel and Iran have the capability and resources to fight a prolonged war, backed by their allies? Both are heavily reliant on their backers, making this a four-way play and adding complexity to the power balance. If we look at the U.S. approach to Ukraine as an example, it becomes clear what the potential for global conflict might look like in the Middle East.

4. Payoff - Is It really worth it?

Given the context, intent, and power balance, the payoff for a global-scale war is very low for both Israel and Iran. In a full-scale war, Israel stands to lose significantly more than Iran, given its smaller size and population. Netanyahu’s government is already teetering under the weight of war, while the regime in Iran might actually become more stable if it escalates into a full-scale conflict.

5. Risk of Accident

No game theory analysis is complete without addressing the potential for “accidents” and spoilers. Given the intensity and sensitivity of the situation, a misfire, radical miscalculation by either side, or interference by a third party could lead to a snowball effect. Wars, if left unchecked, have the potential to spiral out of control. With the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine in full swing and U.S. elections approaching, the likelihood of accidents or mischief is alarmingly high.

To conclude, based on this game theory analysis, it does not appear that either side has the clear intent, power imbalance, or sufficient payoff to trigger World War III. However, as with the previous two world wars, no one truly planned them—they just happened.