A few weeks ago, Israeli warships and a nuclear submarine went through the Suez Canal. Israel is signaling that it can come within firing distance of Iran easily:
Israeli warships have passed through the [Suez] canal in the past but infrequently. The recent concentration of such sailings plainly goes beyond operational considerations into the realm of strategic signalling. To reach the proximity of Iranian waters surreptitiously, Israeli submarines based in the Mediterranean would normally sail around Africa, a voyage that takes weeks. Passage through the Suez could take about a day, albeit on the surface and therefore revealed. The Australian
There is a second signal: (Sunni) Egypt is on board with Israel’s focus on preventing the arrival of a nuclear-armed (Shia) Iran. Even Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the by the growth in the power and influence of its neighbour:
Egypt and other moderate Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia have formed an unspoken strategic alliance with Israel on the issue of Iran, whose desire for regional hegemony is as troubling to them as it is to the Jewish state. There were reports in the international media that Saudi Arabia had consented to the passage of Israeli warplanes through its air space in the event of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities but both Riyadh and Jerusalem have denied it. . The Australian
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Cheap Talk 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 3, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Alex
Ever since I read that story about the Saudis supposedly offering Israel their airspace I’ve been wondering if the Iranians consider it a credible threat. I think that if the Saudis had outright claimed that they offered Israel their airspace it would be less credible. It’s sort of like betting too much in poker, indicating that you clearly don’t have the cards and are just trying to scare your opponents.
Leaving some ambiguity about it seems like the better strategy. An ambiguous commitment is more credible and it keeps the Iranians guessing.
August 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm
sandeep
Alex: I love the strategy of ambiguity and even have some research on it! I like your idea that deliberate ambiguity about your policy actually yields credibility. This is a subtle idea. I do not know if you’re a game theory researcher but if you are it’s a cool thing to formalize. It’s somehow related to work in mechanism design with commitment problems where mixed strategies yield credibility….
August 4, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Alex
I’ve actually just started to get into game theory research this summer and I have read your papers “Strategic Ambiguity and Arms Control” as well as “Arms Races and Negotiations”.
When I read about this supposed agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, what came to mind was Schelling’s book where he explains the idea that threatening (or committing) to play a mixed strategy can be credible in some cases where threatening or committing to a pure strategy cannot be credible.
Saudi Arabia’s ambiguity about the situation could be their way of telling Iran that they are going to play a mixed strategy. There are also domestic political factors to consider, as King Abdullah certainly doesn’t want to make it obvious to the hard-liners in his country that he is collaborating with Israel. This strategy pretty much kills two birds with one stone.
August 4, 2009 at 3:02 pm
sandeep
You’re right. I forgot about Schelling famous stuff. Not sure if someone formalized it already….might be a nice application. Happy someone is actually reading my papers!
August 11, 2009 at 10:48 am
casino
Games are created to overcome some boring days. People have a lot of ways to amuse themselves and one of them is through playing cards.