Every Saturday, a newsletter explores societal trends often overlooked in the daily news cycle. To receive the full version, subscribe.
Donald Trump appears to have miscalculated significantly with the recent U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran. The Islamic regime didn’t collapse in days, or even weeks, despite the bombings and the killing of political leaders. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is stifling the global economy, and novel fissures are appearing between the U.S., the EU, and states in the Persian Gulf, as well as between the United States and Israel. What began as a hoped-for swift victory is turning into a nightmare for Trump, and analysts are diligently dissecting the causes.
You’ll see certainly many contributing factors (Seznam Zprávy continues to provide in-depth analysis), but many assessments ultimately conclude that the current U.S. Administration made exceptionally poor decisions. This understandably leads to justified debates about the character and mental shortcomings of the American president, but it’s also essential to highlight another compelling dimension to the situation.
not just American political elites, but many others, now perceive wars – and many other critical issues – as a game. This isn’t merely a metaphor, but a literal reality. A generation raised on video games is rising to positions of power, and to their detriment, they can’t seem to shake that mindset.
The Limits of Simulation
Problems with this “gaming” mentality aren’t entirely new, and ironically, the current Iranian debacle may have begun more than two decades ago with a poorly understood game.
In 2002, the U.S. Military conducted a large-scale military simulation called Millennium Challenge, designed to explore preparedness for a conflict with an unnamed power in the Persian Gulf region. The game, with what seemed like a predictable outcome, quickly turned into a legendary embarrassment.
Listen to the audio version of the newsletter read by the author.
Retired U.S. General Paul Van Riper led the opposing “red” team (representing a fictional Iran) and cleverly bypassed the U.S. Military’s overwhelming technological superiority. He employed unconventional tactics – using couriers on motorcycles instead of traceable electronic communications, and deploying disguised fishing boats against the American fleet – and inflicted a crushing defeat on the seemingly invincible superpower in record time.
That alone was a significant finding, seemingly forgotten by current American planners. Even more interesting was what happened next. The embarrassed military leadership couldn’t accept Van Riper’s improbable victory. The simulation was stopped and restarted with modified rules designed to ensure an inevitable triumph for the “blue” team.
This revealed a mental failure that persists in these circles today. Commentator Patrick Blanchfield in a compelling essay points out that American elites have, for decades, operated under the illusion that the course of armed conflicts can be clearly predicted and manipulated, and if things don’t go as planned, the rules can simply be changed and the game restarted.
Leaders aren’t just projecting simplified ideas of cause and effect onto a chaotic global stage. They cling to the belief that, like in a military simulation, rules can be circumvented and things can simply be “done” – even if that means killing or kidnapping the head of another state. They are losing sight of the distinction between fantasy and reality and failing to understand the original purpose of simulations like Millennium Challenge – preparation for actual conflict, not a game to be replayed until its rules are mastered.
The Ministry Isn’t a Spaceship
The phrase “taking something as a game” is usually a metaphor, suggesting someone isn’t aware of the consequences of their actions. Increasingly, yet, it can be taken literally – many people raised on gaming consoles subconsciously operate with the logic of video games.
If that sounds far-fetched, consider the brief era of Elon Musk at the helm of the U.S. Agency DOGE, intended to streamline government. The project started with fanfare but quickly began to unravel, revealing the amateurish nature of the undertaking.
The Guardian recently published an extensive exposé detailing the situation. The report highlights Musk’s use of gaming terminology while running DOGE, and his insistence on “gamifying” government. He even suggested needing to get to the “core code” – as if agencies were software – to rewrite the rules.
“You could produce the case that maybe we shouldn’t even be there at all,” Trump said on March 16th during a press gaggle aboard Air Force One, questioning the U.S. Presence in the region. “We have a lot of oil…We were the number one producer anywhere in the world times two by double, at least double. Now I think it’s much higher than that. But we do it. It’s almost like we do it for habit, but we also do it for some very good allies that we have in the Middle East.” The statement drew immediate criticism.
Musk framed his approach as a “speedrun” – a tactic for quickly completing a video game, often by exploiting glitches. He also referred to wanting to “hack” the rules of government, drawing a comparison to the Star Trek Kobayashi Maru scenario, where Captain Kirk famously reprogrammed the simulation to succeed. However, he missed the point of the scene, which was about moral fortitude in the face of inevitable defeat.
The core issue isn’t just abstract gaming logic, but the fact that games are increasingly becoming a practical, literal textbook for understanding the world. This is particularly concerning as younger generations rise to positions of power.
Joshua A. Cohen explains that complex strategy games, like those from Paradox Interactive, have inadvertently shaped the worldview of many young people on the right. These games often present a simplified view of history and rely on outdated urban planning theories.
Cohen notes that the “crusader” aesthetic gained popularity among young right-wing groups after 2012, coinciding with the release of Crusader Kings II. The game’s mechanics reinforce stereotypes and present a distorted view of global economics and history.
The belief that a state or company can be controlled like a game, as Musk seems to believe, is a dangerous illusion. As Brett Scott points out, experienced corporate leaders understand that directives develop into distorted as they move through layers of management, and that a company is not a machine to be easily controlled.
Trump, perhaps unfamiliar with video games, may be driven by ego, while Musk’s approach is informed by gaming logic. This effect is amplified in younger generations.
Not Learning From History
The issue extends beyond video game enthusiasts. It’s about a growing tendency to see the world through a simplified lens of cause and effect. James C. Scott’s book, Seeing Like a State, describes how modern states strive for total oversight, but inevitably encounter distortions and blind spots.
The desire to control and “gamify” the state reflects a broader trend, as highlighted by Celine Nguyen in her essay. The idea of running a state like Sim City, a game based on outdated urban planning theories, is a dangerous oversimplification.
the real world isn’t a game with clear rules and predictable outcomes. It’s a complex system where unforeseen consequences are inevitable. And unlike a video game, there’s no “load” button to undo mistakes. For those now seeking solutions in Washington and the Pentagon, it may already be too late.
Enjoyed this excerpt from the newsletter? Subscribe to receive the full version every Saturday, along with recommendations for further reading.
