Open-Ended Issues — Middle East — v 1.0 — Part 1 (Technical)
Rather optimistic I started to ‘write’ this article about events and relations between events using a kind of causal loop model.
My overall aim was to make it easier to create better and more transparant understanding of Key Global Issues (KGIs) we are confronted with.
I decided on a first attempt with two main KGIs in the Middle East: Iran and Iraq. First I developed a (tentative) list of Open-Ended Issues (possible events). Then I developed the causal loop model. And then I wanted to start to discuss the model content-wise, but I realized I first had to explain to the readers how to read this kind of causal loops diagrams.
It means that this article turned out to be rather technical; I will write a second article to really discuss the content.
Zanshin Post
ps. Because this is still very experimental to me, I hope you will give some feedback on this ‘project’.
~~~~
Open-Ended Issues in the Middle East
There are many Open-Ended Issues in the Middle East.
To name a few (focusing om Iran and Iraq):
-
Iran is a state sponsor of terror Iran is arming insurgents in Afghanistan Iran is building nuclear weapons Iran will freeze it’s uranium enrichment programme - The United Nations Security Council will approve a new round of sanctions against
Iran - The current regime in
Iran will collapse Iran is contributing to worsening security in Iraq Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq Iran will attack Israel Israel will attack Iran - The
United States will act diplomatically with Iran - The
United States will act military against Iran - Lawmakers in
Iraq will pass the Hydrocarbons Law (aka Oil Law) - The
United States will withdraw from Iraq - The current regime in
Iraq will collapse Iraq will split up into three ethnic/religious regions - Al Qaeda will take over
Iraq Iran will take over Iraq - Turkey will invade - the Kurdish region of - Iraq
Presented in a causal-loops diagram, it looks like this,
How to read this diagram ?
Issues
A text-element represents an Open/Ended Issue, for instance, `The United States will act military against Iran`. This issue is open-ended because it can (theoretically) happen or not happen, it is not decided yet.
Relations between issues
As you look at the text-elements you see incoming and outgoing arrows with plus and minus signs next to the arrowheads. Take as an example the arrow from ´Iran is building nuclear weapons´ towards `The United States will act military against Iran` with a plus sign next to its arrowhead.
This relationship between the two issues should be read as follows,
The fact that ´Iran is building nuclear weapons´ will increase the chance that `The United States will act military against Iran`.
A minus sign would mean that the chance would decrease. For instance, the arrow between ´The current regime in Iran will collapse´ and ‘Iran is building nuclear weapons´ means: If Iran´s regime collapses, the change that they continue with building nuclear weapons will decrease.
Relationships forming loops
If you look at the diagram, you will notice loops, for instance,
The fact / perception that ´Iran is building nuclear weapons´
will increase the likelihood that
`The United States will act military against Iran`
which will increase the likelihood that
´The current regime in Iran will collapse
which will decrease the likelihood that
´Iran is building nuclear weapons´Probability of events
How to describe the probability of events? We have choosen to use the Estimative Language from the (United States) National Intelligence Esatimates (NEI) The US Intelligence Community also strugles with (source)
judgments pertaining to likelihood are intended to reflect the Community’s sense of the probability of a development or event. Assigning precise numerical ratings to such judgments would imply more rigor than we intend. The [list] below provides a rough idea of the relationship of terms to each other.
Remote —- Unlikely —- Even chance —- Probably, likely —- Almost certainly
We do not intend the term “unlikely” to imply an event will not happen. We use “probably” and “likely” to indicate there is a greater than even chance.
We use words such as “we cannot dismiss,” “we cannot rule out,” and “we cannot discount” to reflect an unlikely—or even remote—event whose consequences are such it warrants mentioning.
Words such as “may be” and “suggest” are used to reflect situations in which we are unable to assess the likelihood generally because relevant information is nonexistent, sketchy, or fragmented.In addition to using words within a judgment to convey degrees of likelihood, we also ascribe “high,” “moderate,” or “low” confidence levels based on the scope and quality of information supporting our judgments.
* “High confidence” generally indicates our judgments are based on high-quality information and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.
* “Moderate confidence” generally means the information is interpreted in various ways, we have alternative views, or the information is credible and plausible but not corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.
* “Low confidence” generally means the information is scant, questionable, or very fragmented and it is difficult to make solid analytic inferences, or we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.
Impact of events on events
Once an events happens, for instance, ‘The United States attacks Iran‘ , then this event will have an impact on the likelihood of occurring of other events, like, The current regime in Iran will collapse´.
As explained above, the polarity sign next to the arrowhead gives a first indication. In the description of the model we use the following language to indicate the impact of one event on another event,
Weak —- Moderate —- Strong —- Very Strong
These indications will also be ascribed with “high,” “moderate,” or “low” confidence levels based on the scope and quality of information supporting our judgments.