The Prisoner's Dilemma

There is a very famous game theory problem, called the Prisoner's Dilemma, that has specific application to international negotiations. Here are the basics:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

Obama's recent foreign policy decisions remind me of the Dilemma. There is one chilling difference though. Obama has chosen to cooperate with the other side (youtube video to Iran, reduced missile defense in Alaska and Europe, pathetic response to North Korea) and has actually made his choice known to the other side before they have to make their own decisions.

The potential benefit is that any country who might want to cooperate can do so without fear of being exploited.

However, does anyone think Iran, North Korea, China or Russia has much interest in acting cooperatively? Of course not. And so the problem is that these countries, and others, know they can exploit Obama's cooperative actions without danger to themselves. In fact, they have no incentive not to exploit Obama. As Charles Krauthammer notes, Obama is attempting to the world lead by example. But is anyone else really going to follow? Maybe Biden meant he was talking about Obama with his "no one's following" bit.