The Straits Game
Prof. Muhammad Watad argues that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is not a point security issue, but a symptom of a global struggle to shape the rules of the game for the 21st century. According to him, the Western attempt to resolve the crisis through direct military deterrence is structurally doomed to fail, as the asymmetric enemy operates under different logics of backgammon and Go, aiming to make Western naval presence costly and unbearable.
In his article, Prof. Muhammad Watad argues that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is not a point security issue, but a symptom of a broader global struggle to shape the rules of the game for the 21st century. According to him, the classic Western attempt to resolve the crisis through direct military deterrence and naval power projection is structurally doomed to fail. Watad distinguishes between different game concepts: Western chess, which is planned, versus Arab-Persian backgammon, which manages risk under uncertainty, and the Chinese game of Go, which teaches slow encirclement. He warns against the frontal perception fallacy, as the asymmetric enemy does not try to win the naval battle, but to make Western presence costly and attritional. The article analyzes geopolitical arbitrage and the whip effect in supply chains, the normative erosion of international law, and the dilemma of neighboring Arab states. Watad proposes three solution mechanisms: multinational legal-maritime enforcement, maritime risk bonds, and bypass diplomacy.