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

[Evil_Captor]

@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]

@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]

@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.