Serious Play: Think Tank War Games Explore Options on Iran

The Cutting Edge ^ | 1/8/2010 | Jeffrey White and Loring White

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

What if Iran's hardline leadership emerges from the current confrontations at home strengthened and emboldened? If so, the nuclear issue will be back with a vengeance. And three recent war games focused on the Iranian nuclear weapons issue suggest that the prospects for halting the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons are not good.

The games -- conducted by highly respected Western think tanks -- explored various strategies for preventing the Iranian nuclear threat from becoming real. The results, unfortunately, were uniformly negative. Given that these were serious games played by serious people, officials who deal with the nuclear problem as a matter of real policy would be wise to seriously consider their implications.

Purpose and Utility of War Games

Games are strategic planning tools that have proven especially useful in international conflict situations. A war game begins with a defined scenario and evolves through a series of actions to a final situation or outcome. Individuals or teams simulate key decisions by national leaders in a role-playing environment. Meanwhile, an objective, independent team acts as a referee, setting up the initial scenario and adjudicating the play turn by turn. The result is not a prediction of the future but rather a plausible, perhaps even likely, outcome that can be of great value in planning and forecasting.

Wargaming is an alternative to the standard paper assessments fashioned by subject-matter experts, and its unique characteristics convey certain advantages. Games can be highly effective at emulating the dynamic and competitive nature of real-world situations.

[La Lydia]

That is the most depressing thing I have read in a long time.

Current U.S. policy seemed to fail in each game, leaving the situation worse in several dimensions: Iran was undeterred (even strengthened), relations with Israel were in crisis, and international support was lacking.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Ping

[rdl6989]

In about 48 hours from the time of this post we will see what the Iranians meant regarding Feb. 11.

[LibWhacker]

None of these so-called war games involved us nuking the bastards. WTF? Even our war games are weak PC versions of the real thing.

[cranked]

Nukes are considered a defensive option (retaliatory), thus not incorporated into these types game scenarios.

[Cindy]

Thanks for the ping Sonofstrangelove.

OPINION - SPECULATION: The best case scenario: people die. The worst case scenario: a lot of people die.

Too little; too late.

I hope I’m totally wrong.

#

A Look at Iran
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html

[Cindy]

More links:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateI01.php
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateI02.php?SID=2

#

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3170

PolicyWatch #1626

“Serious Play: War Games Explore Options on Iran”
By Jeffrey White and Loring White
February 4, 2010

SNIPPET: “Conclusions

All three games have the ring of truth: they are plausible, credible, and consistent, and they reinforce other analyses suggesting that diplomacy and sanctions will not work. This leads to certain conclusions.

First, the United States must “play” differently in the coming months than the participants who represented it in these simulations. Current U.S. policy seemed to fail in each game, leaving the situation worse in several dimensions: Iran was undeterred (even strengthened), relations with Israel were in crisis, and international support was lacking. Accordingly, the United States and others must conceive and develop new, more robust initiatives (e.g., strong support for regime change).

Second, the United States must plan for military action, either by itself, with others, or in the wake of unilateral Israeli strikes. Both the military and the public should be prepared for the consequences of these scenarios. These preparations must be carried out with the full understanding that the military option is practicable — and, at the end of the day, may well be the required course of action.

Third, the results of these games are likely disturbing for Israel, indicating that its leaders should prepare both diplomatically and militarily to go it alone. A decision to strike could be the most fateful since the state’s founding. Israel needs to ready its military not just for a raid or operation, but also for an extended war on multiple fronts and deep within the homeland. Likewise, the civilian population should prepare itself for the disruption and casualties of such a conflict. Israel already appears to be moving in this direction, and that course seems wise given the outcome of the war games. Time is running out.”

Note: “Jeffrey White is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute, specializing in the military and security affairs of the Levant, Iraq, and Iran. Loring White has had a long private- and public-sector career in the fields of mathematical modeling and scientific data analysis, specializing in the evaluation of high-uncertainty information.”

[Cindy]

Money Quote SNIPPET from the article link in post no. 8:

"Time is running out."

[Pining_4_TX]

Anybody notice that the US is basically broke and our military already stretched thin? Just wondering, because we still have 2 major conflicts going on, one of which would be greatly affected by anything we did to Iran, and we are currently expanding efforts in Pakistan and Yemen. Our resources are not infinite.

Also, I read an interesting piece by a lib that said Obama might start bombing Iran as a way to silence criticism from conservatives. Would conseratives rally round the prez during a new war? That’s a depressing idea.

[willyd]

Did we abandon the preemptive strike doctrine?

[cranked]

Since it was an alleged Bush mechanism, you know full well that Jack Squat has overruled such a doctrine.

Besides, for these type scenarios, preventive or preemptive nuclear strikes are ruled out as not being scenario feasible option(s).

[familyop]

"Also, I read an interesting piece by a lib that said Obama might start bombing Iran as a way to silence criticism from conservatives. Would conseratives rally round the prez during a new war? That’s a depressing idea."

Conservatives would. As hysterical, feminized political speech goes now, there's a no-vote ahead from conservatives for either political party. Conservatives are pro-American, especially in trade. Conservatives are pro-defense, even if taking necessary defensive measures will cause oil prices to rise. Conservatives are moral and tend to avoid vulgar speech. Conservatives are in favor of traditional families with fathers.

Our two political parties are operated by libertine, out of touch, NIMBY, feminists, HOA queens, derive their incomes from government in various ways and regulate against their neighbors' attempts to start new small businesses (too noisy, scary, smoky, ugly, disturbing to animals, etc.) . Most conservatives are certainly not wealthy for the time being.

Show us a commander-in-chief who is a man. Do so with no celebrity considerations, political correctness or desire for pork. Abolish zoning ordinances that prevent new small businesses from starting. Abolish HOAs, so that neighborhoods won't be ruled unconstitutionally against property rights by hags and lawyers.

[familyop]

BTW, Obama works for his anti-American, anti-family favored constituents. He will not order any action against Iran, unless we or our closest allies are physically attacked by Iran. ...same anti-defense policy as the other party has.

Iran needs to be invaded, occupied and denazified (see WWII), but there are no men in leadership now.

[Da Mav]

“The United States was unwilling to use military force or support Israeli military action even after other measures failed.”

This was the assumption of all three scenarios gamed. If we are unwilling to take military action against Iran, we can’t stop or even slow them down in developing nukes. Is anyone actually suprised at that?

Our first action should include sinking every ship in the Iranian navy bigger than a speedboat in the first few hours of the war. Clear the missile threats to Hormuz, gain air superiority, and gradually degrade their infrastructure until they submit to a reasonable set of demands. Not easy but certainly feasible and the results would be transformative. Failing to act and allowing these savages to wield nuclear weapons is the worst scenario of all.

[crosshairs]

None of these so-called war games involved us nuking the bastards.

Do you really think a muzzie present is going to order nukes on fellow muzzies? It will be up to Israel.

[MindBender26]

In about 48 hours from the time of this post we will see what the Iranians meant regarding Feb. 11.

And when it does, TOTUS will be SO surprized !!!! < / satire >

[MindBender26]

What we needed, about 4 months ago, was a rather low order ground burst, using some the old Soviet Pu we bought when the USSR imploded.

No missile, just drive it to near one of their facilities.

It would have “illustrated” their bad handling technique, lack of trustworthiness, blown up their program, all in about 10kt.

Perfect.

[wolfcreek]

Maybe we should call him, Jack Bow.

You can bet his handlers are hoping for some kind of attack/diversion to help deflect current criticism and save his presidency.

[Le Chien Rouge]

The present Administration will appease the mullahs of Iran and our grandchildren will look back, much like we do at pre-WW2 Europe and wonder why NO ONE had the ‘family jewels’ to militarily confront this fanatical regime.

If we are LUCKY, we might have a Winston Churchill emerge as a war leader to rally around.