From Wikipedia: "Suspension of disbelief or "willing suspension of disbelief" is a formula for justifying the use of fantastic or non-realistic elements in literature. It was put forth in English by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative.
The phrase "suspension of disbelief" came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the onus was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it. It might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps proposition of thoughts, ideas, art and theories."

Notice that the definition and the passage don't say it is needed for any storytelling - that is your understanding of it, not what the term actually means. Note there is a further explanation further down the page during a discussion about Superman that illustrates how some readers might need to suspend their disbelief for one element of a fictional story, while other readers would not have any problems with other fantastical elements - some readers accept that a superbeing would exist very easily, but need to suspend their disbelief that his identity as Clark Kent is sufficient to blend in with his co-workers.

Do you need to suspend your disbelief to read a fairy tale? You know it is not true; you are not expected to believe it is true.

That is the crucial element you are missing.

In order to need to "suspend your disbelief", you must actually be asked to believe in something you otherwise might not.

I very highly doubt that RJ intended for "The Wheel of Time" to be taken seriously and for it to contain elements you were supposed to believe in.

I would say your main issue with our arguments is that you don't understand that, just as the Wikipedia article indicated in the Superman example, not all readers need to suspend their disbelief to enjoy a fantasy story because they understand it to be fictional, while you may need to do so. I don't take this story seriously (anymore), so I can read a passage with characters whose motivations are nonsensical and not be bothered, whereas it seems that you demand them to follow a pattern of reasoning that is logical or at least understandable. My "belief" isn't really an issue here, because what this series triggers is my imagination, not my critical thinking (it's the theorizing that triggers that).