War chessboard with snakes & ladders rules
By Sajad Abedi
Political analyst
In international politics and strategic conflict, the metaphor of “chess” has long shaped how we interpret power. Chess suggests pure rationality, calculation, anticipating the opponent and sacrificing lesser pieces to secure victory.
Yet the harsh and at times absurd reality of modern wars, especially in the Middle East and in recent tensions involving Iran and global powers, reveals a striking paradox. The players present themselves as seasoned chess masters, but the logic governing events is closer to the volatile rules of “snakes and ladders.”
In chess, the rules are clear. Each piece moves in a defined way. But on a “chessboard of war ruled by snakes and ladders,” just when a carefully planned move seems to bring victory within reach, everything can collapse. An unexpected sting, a sudden assassination or an abrupt diplomatic shift can send a player crashing from near the top back to the starting point.
Dice that writes fate
In snakes and ladders, the decisive factor is the “dice,” a symbol of chance and forces beyond control. On the battlefield, too, even the most detailed strategies by generals and think tanks can be derailed by a random event. A human error in air defense, a sudden weather change or a minor intelligence leak can have an outsized impact, much like rolling the wrong number at a critical moment.
Many analysts believe that war involving Iran, Israel and the United States have moved beyond the reach of classical game theory. Each move on the chessboard now carries the risk of turning into a “ladder” for sudden progress or a “snake” for a deadly fall.
Fragile ladders & hidden snakes
Ladders represent temporary alliances and tactical successes. When a state assumes it has advanced by securing a new capability or external backing, it is effectively climbing a ladder. But such gains are rarely stable. History shows that external support can quickly turn into a venomous snake overnight, biting from behind.
Recent years have shown how assassinations and surprise strikes can function as the longest snakes on the board. Their impact goes beyond the loss of a single asset. They can push an entire strategic position back to square one, forcing actors to rebuild confidence, authority, and deterrence from the ground up.
Ambiguity in rules of game
The great tragedy is that actors insist they are playing chess. They speak of “strategic patience,” “doctrinal change” and “hybrid operations.” These belong to the world of chess. But when the underlying system is closer to snakes and ladders, such thinking risks becoming a form of “organized folly.” In snakes and ladders, players cannot plan ten moves ahead because they do not know what number the next dice roll will show.
This contradiction has created a kind of “anomie” in international affairs, a breakdown of clear rules. In one moment, a conventional logic such as “missile for missile” may apply. In the next, a cyberattack can disrupt critical systems and send the player to lower levels.
Shifting positions of king & pawn
In chess, the value of pieces is fixed. The king is paramount and pawns are expendable. But in this hybrid environment, that hierarchy can collapse. A small non-state group or a limited operational unit can act as a ladder, pushing a broader front forward. Conversely, targeting senior leadership – a piece at the “king” level – can destabilize the entire system.
Recent developments, including the assassination of high-level figures and rapid shifts within power structures, highlight how unstable the playing field has become. Just as observers begin to signal the end of an era (falling from the tail of a snake), new appointments and rapid adjustments emerge, allowing actors to regain lost ground.
Endgame: Does anyone truly win?
In snakes and ladders, victory comes with reaching the final square. But in today’s chessboard of war, it is unclear what victory actually means and where the final square is. Is it the total defeat of an adversary or the achievement of lasting peace?
The closer the actors move toward what appears to be an endpoint, the greater the risks become with more snakes. Tensions intensify and even minor miscalculations carry heavy costs.
We are no longer in an era defined by the structured rivalries of the Cold War or the simpler games of the colonial era. Today’s environment of “snakes and ladders chess” where pieces should be arranged with the precision of chess, yet players must always be prepared to overhaul the entire plan at the single sting of a snake.
To survive on this board, “chess intelligence” alone is no longer sufficient; rather, “snakes and ladders resilience” is required, the capacity to recover from setbacks and recognize that neither success nor failure is permanent. The dice are still rolling, and the board remains unstable, waiting for the next move. The hope is that rationality can prevail in this high-stakes game, restraining the snakes of malice and war before the entire board is consumed in the fire of a “bad roll” of the dice.