Strategic interaction between Russia and US in Syria: a game theoretic analysis from 2014-2022


  • Zohaib Gillani Area Study Centre for Africa, North and South America, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  • Saira Aquil Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
  • Huda Rehman Marxe School of Public and International Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York (CUNY), United States.



Middle East, Syrian conflict, Nash equilibrium, game theory, zero-sum game, regime change, strategic preferences, strategic interest, regional dominance


The strategic interests of Russia and the US clash in the Syrian conflict. Moscow’s policy in Syria aims for the Assad government to remain in power, whereas the US policy seeks to bring a regime change in Syria by toppling the Assad government. The competition and cooperation between Russia and the US in the Middle Eastern region are quite complex and reflect a tussle for regional dominance. A game theoretic analysis is conducted for the interaction between two great powers to examine the strategies opted by both players in the case of the Syrian civil war. This paper analyses the role of Russian and American regional policy objectives in Syria from 2014 to 2022. This study considers the cause-and-effect relationship in the regional supremacy of Russia and the US and studies them as independent variables. The conflict in policy goals of both powers in the Syrian conflict is taken as the dependent variable. The methodology applied in this paper is game theory because it explains cause-and-effect phenomena in a systematic and detailed manner. The game between Russia and the US is to achieve maximum foreign policy objectives in Syria, which is concluded as a zero-sum game from 2014-2022.


Allison, R. (2013). Russia and Syria: explaining alignment with a regime in crisis. International Affairs, 89(4), 795-823. DOI:

Bhardwaj, R. (2023). Can religious conflicts impact religious consumption choices? a game-theoretic approach. Routledge. DOI:

Bhuiyan, B. A. (2018). An overview of game theory and some applications. Philosophy and Progress, 59(1-2), 111-128. DOI:

Borozna, A. (2022). The sources of Russian foreign policy assertiveness. Palgrave Macmillan Cham. DOI:

Bowen, W. (2020). The Obama administration and Syrian chemical weapons: deterrence, compellence, and the limits of the “resolve plus bombs” formula. Security Studies, 29(5), 797-831. DOI:

Brooks, S. G. (1997). Dueling realisms. International Organization, 51(3), 445-477. DOI:

Caporaso, J. A. (1992). International relations theory and multilateralism: the search for foundations. International organization, 46(3), 599-632. DOI:

Dunne, T. (2021). International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University. DOI:

Folker, S. (2015). Making sense of international relations theory. Lynne Rienner.

Foot, R. (2020). China, the UN, and human protection: beliefs, power, image. Oxford University. DOI:

Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485-507. DOI:

Guner, S. (2003). Game theory and international politics. METU Studies in Development, 30(2), 163-180.

Hamilton, R. A. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, New Series, 211(4489), 1390-1396. DOI:

Hussain, M., Khan, T., & Hashmi, S. M. (2022). To (or not to) intervene: social constructivist approach to US humanitarian intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 6(1), 201–219. DOI:

Jensen, C. E. (2014). The realism reader. Routledge. DOI:

Jervis, R. (1976). Perceptions and Misperceptions in International Politics. Princeton University.

Jervis, R. (1988). Realism, game theory, and cooperation. World Politics, 40(3), 317-349. DOI:

Kaplan, M. A. (2005). System and process in international politics. ECPR Press.

Kaye, D. D. (2022). America's Role in a Post-American Middle East. The Washington Quarterly, 45(1), 45(1), 7-24. DOI:

Khoury, N. (2015, December 16). New Cold War comes to Syria. The Cairo Review of Global Affairs.

King, G. (1995). The qualitative-quantitative disputation: Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba’s designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 454-480.

Kissinger, H. (2011). Years of upheaval. Simon and Schuster.

Lavrov, S. (2011, May 17). On Syria and Libya. MR Online.

Lavrov, S. (2011). Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions at joint press conference with UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah AL Nahyan. MID Russia.

Lichbach, M. I. (2003). Is rational choice theory all of social science? The University of Michigan. DOI:

Martin, B. (1978). The selective usefulness of game theory. Social Studies of Science, 8(1), 85-110. DOI:

Mehmood, S., Sulaiman, S., & Jabbar, A. (2022). Discourse analysis of the US War on Terror policy in Afghanistan. Journal of Humanities, Social and Management Sciences (JHSMS), 3(1), 487–500. DOI:

Mesquita, B. B. (1985). Forecasting political events: the future of Hong Kong. Yale University.

Mirza, M. N., Abbas, H., & Qaisrani, I. H. (2021). Anatomising Syrian crisis: Enumerating actors, motivations, and their strategies (2011-2019). Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 5(1), 41–54. DOI:

Morrow, J. D. (1994). Game theory for political scientists. Princeton University. DOI:

Nicholas, M. (2019, 12 20). Russia, China veto U.N. approval of aid deliveries to Syria from Turkey. Reuters.

Nistor, M. A. (2020, April 25). Zero-sum and other statistical games: game theory offers insights into the strategies and decisions of human contestants engaged in competitive situations.

Pappalardo, M. (2008). Multiobjective optimization: a brief overview. Pareto optimality, game theory and equilibria. Springer. DOI:

Pollak, N. (2022, December 28). Deepening Russia-Iran relationship should worry Israel. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

Powell, R. (1999). In the shadow of power: states and strategies in international politics. Princeton University. DOI:

Powell, R. (1999). The modeling enterprise and security studies. International Security, 24(2), 97-106. DOI:

Robinovich, I. (2016, May 4). The Russian-U.S. relationship in the Middle East: a five-year projection. Carenegie Endowment for International Peace.

Robinson, K. (2022, July 20). Council on foreign relations. Council of Foreign Relations.

Ryan, L. W. (2014, June 1). U.S. insists Assad must go, but expects he will stay. Reuters.

Sadek, L. (2016). Russia's resurgence in Syria: a new cold war. The American University in Cairo, Master's thesis.

Schmidt, B. C. (2002). Handbook of International Relations. Sage. DOI:

Stien, A. A. (1999). The limits of strategic choice: constrained rationality and incomplete explanation. In Strategic Choices and International Relations (pp. 197-228). Princeston University. DOI:

Tayyab, M., Afridi, S. A., & Hamid, M. (2020). Sectarian Divide as a Cause of Protracted Conflict: A Case of Syria (2011-18). Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 4(2), 294–305. DOI:

Turacy, T. L. (2001, October 8). Game Theory.

Waltz, K. N. (2014). Realist thought and neorealist theory. Routledge.

Wesser, B. (2019, November). The limits of Russian strategy in the middle East. RAND Corporation.

Wight, B. C. (2023). Rationalism and the “rational actor assumption” in realist international relations theory. Journal of International Political Theory, 19(2), 158-182. DOI:



How to Cite

Gillani, Z., Aquil, S., & Rehman, H. (2023). Strategic interaction between Russia and US in Syria: a game theoretic analysis from 2014-2022. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 7(1), 221–238.



Research Articles | Original Research