If We Elect Romney President, Does War With Iran Become Very, Very Likely?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Remember, experts have wargamed the idea of a limited airstrike on Iran, whether by the U.S. or by Israel, in 2004, and in 2010, and in 2012, and they can never seem to find a scenario where such action does not spin out of control into a general regional war.

That is why we should not risk it under any circumstances.

There are always legitimate reasons for going to war, so it's silly to say we don't want to under any circumstances. I'm comfortable with "most" circumstances.

[adaher]

Why would an airstrike spiral into a regional war in Iran's case, but not in Iraq or Syria's case? What do they think the variable is that makes Iran different?

A regional war would be suicidal for Iran. Do wargamers assume Iran is that irrational? if so, that's an argument for a preemptive strike not against one.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

War is not likely with Iran. Warfare is very very likely if Romney becomes President. If Obama remains President it becomes unlikely. Romney is already going on his foreign policy tour to show that he doesn't give a shit about peace in the Middle East and that he is willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in all these Middle East, including feeding into right-wing paranoia over Iran's nuclear program. If anything, his policy of "Israeli policy right or wrong" shows America in decline.

Obama will refocus on true peace in the Middle East because he won't have to care about his re-election anymore. He is only likely to bomb up until the election. He isn't buying Israeli lies over the state of Iran's nuclear energy and possible weapons programs.

[adaher]

It's hard to know for sure, but I doubt Romney is much of a hawk.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by adaher

A regional war would be suicidal for Iran. Do wargamers assume Iran is that irrational? if so, that's an argument for a preemptive strike not against one.

No, it isn't, actually.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Remember, experts have wargamed the idea of a limited airstrike on Iran, whether by the U.S. or by Israel, in 2004, and in 2010, and in 2012, and they can never seem to find a scenario where such action does not spin out of control into a general war.

You do realize that many wargames are basically scripted exercises, right? Not necessarily predictions on what will happen if we do "x"? For many wargames, the fact that the situation devolves should be about as surprising as Bruce Willis escaping just in time before that building had a spectacular explosion.

Now, I think attacking Iran would be a profound mistake, but it just bugs me when people trot out wargames as evidence of something.

[adaher]

If Iran is irrational, they can't be allowed to have a bomb. This is actually Obama administration policy. Iran will not get a bomb.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by adaher

It's hard to know for sure, but I doubt Romney is much of a hawk.

I don't think Romney is personally much of a hawk, either. He does not appear to be very interested in international affairs. But most of the people who would serve as his staff ARE hawks, they are the same damn neocons, for the most part, that got us into Iraq. We do NOT need these idiots leading us to another needless war again, whether their puppet in chief is Bush or Romney.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

You do realize that many wargames are basically scripted exercises, right? Not necessarily predictions on what will happen if we do "x"? . . .

I never knew that... What the hell good are they if they're scripted? I thought the whole point was to create a "sim" of a given situation, and "game it out" to see how it *might* develop. Then to do it again, with new players, to try to work out an envelope of probabilities and possibilities.

It may only be an urban legend, but the story is told of the Japanese admirals wargaming Midway, and having their carriers sunk. They shrugged it off as only one possibility among many -- which, I guess, is valid -- but that's the way it actually did work out.

Having the game host tell you, "Okay, the Blue Army wins and the Red Army loses, so get out there and fake it" would seem to be not very educational. Saying, "Go out there and fight it like a real battle" would seem far more productive.

(As opposed to "re-enactments" which are, of course, highly scripted. And even there, I'm told, individuals are free to choose whether or not to "die." One re-enacter told me it's nice to die, because you get to stretch out on the cool grass and rest a while.)

[adaher]

If the neocons wanted Iran, they would have gone in at some point during Bush's second term. Plus the neocons' main objective, democratization of the Muslim world, is already being achieved without any further shoves.

There are only two ways we go to war with Iran: if they sponsor a terror attack on US soil, or they actually get close to a bomb and Israel hasn't already acted. And these conditions apply whether Obama or Romney is President.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by adaher

If the neocons wanted Iran, they would have gone in at some point during Bush's second term. Plus the neocons' main objective, democratization of the Muslim world, is already being achieved without any further shoves.

As I recall the idea was floated in Bush's second term, but it went absolutely nowhere because people who were NOT insane neocon warhawks figured we already had ENOUGH wars going on with Iraq and Afghanistan, "Mission Accomplished" notwithstanding.

There are only two ways we go to war with Iran: if they sponsor a terror attack on US soil, or they actually get close to a bomb and Israel hasn't already acted. And these conditions apply whether Obama or Romney is President.

No, there's also the Iraq way: drum up a war frenzy in the American media and among the American public and go in because they are "too close" to a bomb when they actually are not. Plus, so Iran DOES get the bomb, so what? Pakistan HAS the bomb, they haven't used it. Everybody knows that Israel and the US have the bomb in spades and if you use the bomb on either nation, your nation will have to be renamed "Smoldering Craterstan."

[adaher]

Pakistan's government isn't crazy, although Pakistan having the bomb could become a big problem if things keep going as they are. But that's India's problem and India won't hesitate to deal with it. Same goes for Iran and Israel. Not really our problem unless Iran stupidly decides to make it our problem.

A war could be drummed up, but Romney's not GWB. GWB's entire campaign consisted of a tax cut and some small bore ideas on the homeless, education, and AIDS in Africa. Romney has an economy to fix. A war with Iran is a distraction he doesn't need or want.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I never knew that... What the hell good are they if they're scripted? I thought the whole point was to create a "sim" of a given situation, and "game it out" to see how it *might* develop. Then to do it again, with new players, to try to work out an envelope of probabilities and possibilities.

There are war games that are simulations, with a red team playing the enemy and having simulated military capabilities that are matched against real capabilities, like a game of Dungeons and Dragons or whatever. But a good number of war games are exercises to understand decision-making on both sides of a conflict. BG's link to the 2004 exercise describes it well:

Our exercise was stripped down to the essentials. It took place in one room, it ran for three hours, and it dealt strictly with how an American President might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. It wasn't meant to explore every twist or repercussion of past U.S. actions and future U.S. approaches to Iran.

Let's say you're put in the role of the President, and there's tensions in the Gulf. What scenario is going to cause you to think harder and more creatively about a problem: Scenario A, in which Iran responds to a US demarche by sending saboteurs into Iraq to carry out a nefarious mission, or Scenario B, in which Iran responds to a US demarche by sinking a US ship using small boat swarms? Scenario B, of course. That isn't a reflection on the probability of that happening, the event is used to make you, as the President, come up with real courses of action that can be analyzed. After the exercise, did you wish you had more naval assets at your command? Did your adviser present you with enough options? Were you thinking "out of the box" or relying on stale advice?

There are other types of war games, of course, but the odds are that when you read about something done by a think-tank-like organization, it's a tabletop exercise that is examining human factors, not trying to predict the threat of a particular weapons system or a country's war plans. The reason there are spies is to obtain the latter.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by adaher

Romney has an economy to fix. A war with Iran is a distraction he doesn't need or want.

So is the economy.

[John Mace]

Americans need a full generation to have passed before we start another senseless war. We're not due our next one for at least 10 or 15 more years. Then, it'll be time to worry.