Political Theater Directed by Irrational Actors

How the Collective West’s Actions Are Now Best Understood as the Decisions of Irrational Actors

Jon Kurpis is an elected official, writer, and entrepreneur dedicated to advocating for everyday citizens. Known for his independent mindset and principled approach, Kurpis is respected for holding those in power accountable. His background in government, policy, and geopolitics makes him a trusted voice on complex political and cultural matters. He is a Contibuting Analyst to The Duran Daily. For more his writing visit his account on Substack (kurpis.substack.com).

---

For those who follow international relations and diplomacy, the period since the first United States and Israeli attack on Iran in June 2025 has been marked by an unusual and noteworthy degree of uncertainty. What makes this period particularly significant is that the uncertainty is not originating from the general public or from those lacking familiarity with geopolitical affairs. Rather, it is coming from experts around the world.

When I say experts, I am not referring to bought and paid for media personalities or television commentators. I am referring to individuals with extensive experience in the theory and practice of diplomacy, negotiation, military affairs, intelligence, and strategic planning. These are people who understand the governing frameworks of international relations, the actors involved, the incentives driving their behavior, and the range of responses available to each participant.

Yet despite possessing this level of knowledge and experience, many of these individuals have expressed a remarkable and unsettling degree of concern regarding the trajectory of global events and what may come next.

As everyone reading this will agree, the world is facing a number of significant challenges, many of which carry profound implications for international stability. That said, those who specialize in diplomacy and statecraft are not strangers to uncertainty, crisis, or danger. History is filled with periods that were objectively more perilous than the present moment. From world wars to nuclear confrontations and countless regional conflicts, previous generations faced dangers that threatened the survival of entire nations. The lessons learned from those experiences ultimately helped shape the institutions, theories, and diplomatic practices that modern states rely upon today to manage risk, prevent escalation, and resolve disputes.

Given that reality, the obvious question becomes this: what is it about the state of the world over the past year that has prompted so many respected members of the geopolitical community to express concern?

More importantly, why are individuals whose careers have been spent understanding uncertainty suddenly finding the current moment so uniquely troubling?

Answering these questions through an understanding of the deeper issues involved is the purpose of this article.

Rational Diplomacy
At the heart of contemporary diplomacy lies the theory of rational actors. While entire libraries have been written on this nuanced subject, for our purposes diplomacy can generally be defined as the process through which a nation state attempts to understand, predict, influence, and reshape the strategies and calculations of another state without resorting to war.

Likewise, a nation state can be described as a rational actor when it makes decisions logically in pursuit of its national interests, security, and survival. The rational actor model is central to modern diplomacy because it is built upon the assumption that states can be influenced through incentives, pressure, negotiation, signaling, and other forms of engagement.

As a result, the role of the diplomat is to alter an opponent’s behavior by changing that actor’s cost benefit calculations. The objective is to create circumstances in which cooperation becomes more attractive than resistance, or where the costs of a particular course of action outweigh the perceived benefits. In essence, diplomacy is the art of influencing decisions by understanding how another state evaluates its interests and then shaping those calculations accordingly.

To accomplish this, diplomats invest enormous amounts of time trying to determine what the other side wants, fears, values, and needs. Once that is understood, they can utilize a variety of tools designed to alter their opponent’s choices and shape outcomes. These tools include, but are not limited to, incentives, deterrence, negotiations, and signaling.

With respect to incentives, the purpose is to convince an opposing actor that cooperation is in its best interest by offering tangible benefits, while at the same time making it clear that resistance or noncompliance will come with consequences.

Deterrence functions in a similar manner. Rather than offering benefits for cooperation, it seeks to convince an opponent that the costs of pursuing a particular course of action outweigh any potential gains.

Negotiations are another powerful tool used in diplomacy. But for it to be effective, trade offs must be possible. Diplomacy requires the understanding of an opponent’s priorities in order to determine what will be acceptable as a compromise. Once those factors are understood, diplomats can craft arrangements that allow both sides to achieve outcomes they consider acceptable, even if neither side obtains everything it originally wanted.

Last but not least, signaling is the use of actions or behavior by one state to convey its intentions and priorities to another, influencing how that state assesses the situation and responds.

A terrific example of diplomatic signaling can be seen in President Clinton’s 1994 statement regarding relations with North Korea:

“We will continue to pursue diplomacy, but we will not rule out any options necessary to protect our security interests.”

In essence, the United States was communicating two messages simultaneously. First, it was signaling a willingness to engage in diplomacy and pursue a negotiated solution. Second, it was signaling that the costs of refusing negotiations or continuing provocative behavior could be significant. This is a classic example of diplomatic signaling because it attempts to shape an opponent’s decision making without immediately resorting to force.

---

To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Thank you!

---

History
To fully appreciate how deeply studied these concepts are, it is important to understand that the intellectual roots of the rational actor model extend back centuries and are grounded in some of the earliest works of political and strategic thought. Thinkers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes argued that rulers and states ultimately prioritize survival, security, and power when operating in a dangerous and competitive world. While they did not use modern terminology, their writings laid the foundation for the idea that states behave according to identifiable interests and rational objectives.

The model itself, however, truly crystallized during the twentieth century alongside the development of realism and game theory. It was during this period that scholars, diplomats, military planners, and policymakers began systematically applying the rational actor framework to international affairs and strategic decision making.

The model reached its greatest prominence during the Cold War when defense ministries, arms control negotiators, and foreign policy analysts all relied heavily upon rational actor assumptions when evaluating the behavior of both allies and adversaries.

At the core of this approach was a simple but enormously important premise: even bitter enemies prefer survival to annihilation. Without that assumption, the entire logic of nuclear deterrence collapses. The theories of mutually assured destruction, strategic signaling, and nuclear diplomacy all depend upon the belief that opposing leaders are ultimately making decisions based upon some form of rational calculation regarding costs, benefits, risks, and survival.

This does not mean that proponents of rational actor theory believe that human beings are perfectly logical or incapable of making mistakes. Rather, the rational actor model has endured because it remains one of the best and most workable predictive frameworks available. It provides diplomats and policymakers with a method for understanding how states are likely to behave, what incentives may influence them, what risks they are willing to accept, and what actions they are likely to avoid.

For this reason, the model continues to be deeply embedded within modern diplomacy, foreign policy, military planning, and international relations. From Cold War nuclear negotiations to contemporary military disputes, the geopolitical world relies upon the assumption that foreign actors are pursuing objectives according to some form of internal logic, even when that logic is not immediately obvious to outside observers.

So What’s the Problem?
This brings us to the uncomfortable reality that the world currently finds itself in. Namely that the collective West, and more significantly, the United States, which for decades has been the world’s foremost champion of rational actor based diplomacy, has undergone a radical transformation. The very nations that helped develop, refine, and utilize these principles so effectively throughout the twentieth century have now chosen to abandon them.

What makes this development so striking is that the United States has historically been among the greatest proponents of rational actor theory. In fact, Americans have spent generations mastering the art of understanding adversaries, predicting behavior, shaping incentives, and achieving outcomes that are in-line with their strategic interests. Much of the international system that emerged after the Second World War was built upon these experiences.

But today, there appears to be an almost universal willingness to abandon those principles and instead engage in behavior that is objectively illogical, contradictory, and detached from traditional strategic calculations. This shift is not isolated to one issue or one region. Rather, it appears in multiple areas of foreign policy and international affairs across the collective West.

For Example
When it comes to the irrational behavior and decision making of the United States and the Collective West, there is certainly no shortage of examples. In fact, that is precisely why it can be said that there is a serious problem at work rather than merely a series of isolated mistakes. Every nation occasionally makes a bad decision. What becomes unusual is when those decisions are irrational and form a recurring pattern.

With that in mind, it is worth reviewing a few relevant instances.

In the case of the United States, consider the manner in which it has treated China over the last decade. The relationship has increasingly been characterized by hostility, antagonism, and punitive measures.

Regardless of whether one believes those actions are justified, the timing raises serious questions. The United States has chosen to intensify pressure on China at a moment when China dominates the global rare earth market and America remains heavily dependent on those materials for its defense industry, advanced manufacturing sector, and military industrial complex.

In practical terms, this means China possesses significant leverage. Should Beijing choose to restrict access to these materials, it will create serious disruptions for American industry and defense production.

To be clear, this dependency will not last forever. America will eventually develop alternative supply chains, expand domestic production, or secure new sources. But that only reinforces the question. If America remains dependent upon Chinese rare earths in the short term, why pursue policies that increase tensions with the very country controlling those resources?

From the perspective of the rational actor model, one would expect policymakers to minimize vulnerabilities until alternatives are available. Instead, the US has intentionally chosen a path that increases them. Whether one agrees with the policy or not, it is difficult to argue that it reflects a rational effort to maximize long term interests while minimizing immediate strategic risks.

Another example comes from the European Union and its ongoing saga regarding the permanent confiscation of Russian assets frozen at the start of the conflict in Ukraine.

Regardless of one’s views on the special military operation, permanently seizing those assets raises extraordinary legal and financial concerns. Europe has spent decades building a reputation as a stable, rules based environment where governments, institutions, and investors could safely store wealth and conduct business.

If frozen assets can ultimately be confiscated and transferred elsewhere, however, that sends a powerful message to the rest of the world. It raises an obvious question: if this can happen to Russia today, could it happen to someone else tomorrow?

From a rational actor perspective, this threatens one of Europe’s greatest long-term strengths, namely confidence in its financial and legal systems.

The situation becomes even more questionable because the assets are being discussed for transfer to a non-European Union country engaged in an ongoing war whose outcome remains grim. Moreover, the conflict has already consumed enormous resources, produced tragic casualties, and generated repeated concerns regarding accountability and corruption.

Again, the question is straightforward. How is this rational?

From the standpoint of rational actor theory, one would expect EU policymakers to protect the long-term interests and strategic advantages of their institutions. Instead, the European Union is willing to permanently jeopardize its financial credibility and legal reputation in pursuit of a short-term political objective.

The problem of irrational diplomacy is not tied to any one policy or country in isolation. The issue is that examples such as these are the new norm and impossible to explain through the traditional framework of rational actor behavior.

The consequences of this shift into the realm of the irrational actor cannot be overstated. The international system relies upon a basic degree of predictability among major powers. Diplomacy functions because states assume that other states are operating according to some identifiable logic, even when they disagree profoundly. Once that assumption begins to erode, the ability to predict behavior, manage crises, negotiate compromises, and avoid escalation becomes akin to rolling the dice with one’s national interests.

Full Circle
At the start of this article, I described the palpable sense of concern that exists among geopolitical experts. We then explored how diplomacy and rational actors are supposed to function, and reviewed the history and development of the rational actor model itself.

What we have ultimately come to realize is that the analysts, diplomats, and foreign policy experts who remain deeply worried are not being alarmists, nor are they somehow failing to see the bigger picture. In this case, they are worried precisely because they do see the bigger picture.

The uncomfortable reality is that the United States and much of the Collective West have transformed from nation states that historically relied upon the rational actor model into countries that are now behaving as irrational actors themselves. Even more troubling, these actions are celebrated and frequently accompanied by false narratives, misrepresentations, cover ups, and other efforts designed to smooth over the fallout, preserve credibility, and obscure what their true intentions may be.

History is filled with examples of powerful nations gradually losing touch with reality while simultaneously becoming more convinced of their own righteousness and infallibility. Late-stage empire behavior, strategic overreach, and nation state hubris are hardly uncommon phenomena. What makes the current environment so remarkable is the abruptness and aggressiveness of the shift. To watch governments and institutions that spent decades championing rational statecraft suddenly act in ways that are disconnected from those principles is as astounding as it is reckless. More importantly, these actions are being pursued at the direct expense of the very people those leaders, policymakers, and institutions are supposed to represent.

The danger is further compounded by the fact that we do not live in the world of previous empires. We live in a world with more people, more technology, more interconnected systems, and more mechanisms for mutually assured destruction than at any point in human history. Miscalculations that once might have been regional can now become global. Escalations that once took months can occur in hours.

For generations, people took comfort in the idea that regardless of political disagreements, there were serious people behind the scenes managing events and preventing the worst outcomes from occurring. There was an assumption that the proverbial adults in the room would ultimately prevail.

What has so many geopolitical experts alarmed today is the realization that those adults have abandoned any meaningful attachment to rational diplomacy itself. And the implications of that extend far beyond any individual conflict, election, or geopolitical dispute.

The future of the world depends upon nation-state actors behaving rationally. But when the most powerful nations on earth quickly and aggressively move away from that foundation, the risks are not merely theoretical. They become very real, very dangerous, and without any logical mechanism to fix or stop it. That is why so many geopolitical observers are as alarmed as they are today.

In the end, once every layer of pretense has been peeled away, those who recognize the dynamics at play are confronted with a disquieting reality: what remains of nation-to-nation diplomacy is largely Political Theater Directed by Irrational Actors.

As always, I thank you all for your continued support and readership.

Until next time,

Jon Kurpis

DISCLAIMER: This article is published strictly in my personal capacity and reflects only my individual views and analysis. Nothing herein should be interpreted as an official statement, communication, or policy position associated with my role as an elected official, any municipality, governmental authority, political party, or affiliated public institution. Furthermore, the perspectives expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of The Duran.

---