ISIS Hostage Negotiations: The

Irrationality of TerrorismChEcu Mate

Brendan Shanahan, Gali Ross, Will Lynn, Martin Ahrens, Paul Pemberton

BOTTOM UP ANALYSIS

DATA

CompetitorAnalysis

Behavior

GT

DATA:- Formerly Al Qaeda in

Iraq- 20,000 – 32,000

Fighters (CIA estimate)- 2,000 westerners in

ranks (10%)- Control large swathes

of Iraq and Syria- Strong anti-western

sentiments

BOTTOM UP ANALYSIS

DATA

CompetitorAnalysis

Behavior

GT

Competitor Analysis:

Goals: - Establish Caliphate- Eliminate western

influence in middle east

Strategies:- Blitzkrieg warfare- Public executions- Recruit western

operatives

BOTTOM UP ANALYSIS

DATA

CompetitorAnalysis

Behavior

GT

Competitor Analysis:

Capabilities:- 20,000 – 32,000

Fighters- Access to captured

Iraqi and Syrian army weapons

- Control of oil reserves- Captured and privately

funded wealth

BOTTOM UP ANALYSIS

DATA

CompetitorAnalysis

Behavior

GT

Behavioral Analysis:

Rational Model Departure:- Terrorism is innately

irrational from a western perspective

Current Strategy:- Build reputation

through fear- Demonstrate disregard

for life

BOTTOM UP ANALYSIS

DATA

CompetitorAnalysis

Behavior

GT

Game Theory Application:

Analyzing Executions by ISISPlayer 1 (Islamic State):

Player 2 (Western Allies):

BOTTOM UP ANALYSIS

DATA

CompetitorAnalysis

Behavior

GT

Game Theory Application:

Analyzing Executions by ISIS

Existing Parameters of Game: West is Bombing, Hostage TakenPotential Game 1:

IGOUGO Game- Bombing Decision- Execution Decision- Payoffs

- Reputation- Strategic and Financial

Potential Game 2:

Dynamic Game- Similar to a business

competition game- More complicated- Need for more analysis at

this time.

IGOUGO GAMEMove 1: JAMES FOLEY

More Air Strik

es

Cont’d Air Strikes

End Air Strikes

Kill hostage

Kill hostage

Hold hostage

Hold hostage

Hold hostage

Kill hostage

Estimating ISIS PayoffsWhat does the Islamic State value right now?

Reputation Capabilities

Escalation(Air Strikes Increase)

Status Quo(Air Strikes Continue)

West “Blinks”(Air Strikes End)

Increase in recruitment, credibility, media attention

Escalated damage to income sources, strategic military installments

Maintain credibility and recruitment position

Moderate damage to infrastructure and military installments

Decrease in recruiting and fundraising opportunities

Strengthening of income sources, buildup of armaments

Estimating the West’s Payoffs

Reputation Capabilities

Escalation(Air Strikes Increase)

Status Quo(Air Strikes Continue)

West “Blinks”(Air Strikes End)

Strengthened military credibility and show of force, but risk of civilian casualties & failure

Expensive military action, but protect oil reserves from ISIS control

Open to criticism for underestimating ISIS threat

Moderate military action, steady ISIS expansion and threat to oil, stability

Appear weak and vulnerable to future kidnapping/terrorist threats, exposes IRAQ to ISIS advance

Saved military cost but rapid expansion by ISIS, major threat to oil, stability

Conclusions

Rationalities are vastly different› Each side views the other as irrational› Necessary to empathize with other side

Payoffs push both Players to Escalation Multiple factors at play

› Finance› Reputation› Others…?

How does the long term game factor in?

What other players are there?

What other hostages does ISIL have?

Can the West afford to negotiate?

FIND OUT NEXT TIME…