|
War Games Explore Military Options for Iran
What do folks with actual military experience think of war games? Are the simulations of some use, or is it useless to apply linear models to a non-linear real world? I recall reading about General Van Riper's disturbing exploits in Millenium Challenge 2002. Enclosed are the results from three recent simulations on military action in Iran, one from Harvard, Tel Aviv, and the Brookings institute. (A cycnic might ask do you have to get into Harvard to guess these results?)
Quote:
The Harvard war game. Organized by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, this game explored how the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program might evolve in the coming year. Reported results included:
* The United States could not get any meaningful support for sanctions.
* Russia and China -- both of which will be key players if sanctions are to work -- conducted secret negotiations with Iran.
* The U.S.-Israeli relationship deteriorated dramatically during the game, leading to a deep diplomatic crisis.
* Iran saw itself in a strong position and played accordingly.
* Iran emerged better off at the end of the game than it had been at the beginning. By December 2010, it had doubled its supply of low-enriched uranium and was proceeding to weaponization.
According to one participant, Iran "never felt seriously threatened" and could "win" the game easily. Indeed, most observers would probably characterize the outcome as a win for Iran and a defeat for the United States and Israel.
The Tel Aviv war game. Organized by the Institute for National Security Studies, the Tel Aviv simulation explored U.S.-Iranian nuclear negotiations and potential Israeli responses. Reported results included:
* Iran assumed a strong position in the game based on a clear objective: obtaining nuclear weapons.
* Israel and the United States lacked clear goals and strategies for dealing with Iran's program.
* The Iranians saw the United States as weak and indecisive but viewed their own position as strong.
* Israel was perceived as being unhelpful to the United States.
* At game's end, Iran continued its nuclear program, neither persuaded nor deterred.
The Brookings war game. Conducted at the institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington, D.C., this game explored how Israel, Iran, and the United States might respond to an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Reported results included:
* The United States was unhappy with Israel over the attack.
* The United States tried to talk tough with Iran but also sought direct negotiations.
* The United States attempted to stay out of the conflict.
* The U.S. response was limited and defensive.
* Iran interpreted U.S. behavior as weak and was emboldened by this perception.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articl...ran_97526.html
|
__________________
"Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” -Sir Ernest Shackleton
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” –Greek proverb
|
Linear Mode
