George Washington University students navigate the treacherous waters of international diplomacy in a war game simulating Iranian reactions to Israel’s recent military strike.
At a Glance
- Israel’s military strike on Iran has escalated tensions significantly.
- George Washington University’s war game simulates Iran’s response strategies.
- Participants are challenged to influence Iran’s political factions.
- A comprehensive understanding of Iran’s nuclear ambitions surfaces.
Examining the Dynamics
In the halls of academia, future policymakers are sharpening their strategic acumen. The graduate students at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs partook in a war game that examined the possible aftermath of an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Amidst a backdrop of heightened tensions, the students, representing factions within Iran, grappled with the intricacies of influencing the Supreme Leader’s decision-making process. This is no mere academic exercise; their choices are hypothetical reflections of Iran’s steadfast nuclear aspirations.
The seminar placed participants as representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Administration, and the Guardian Council. The objective: navigate the volatile interplay between maintaining nuclear capabilities and external diplomatic pressures. On October 7, 2023, Israel’s strategic airstrikes hit military objectives in Tehran and other regions, marking a dangerous escalation following prior Hamas attacks. Four Iranian soldiers perished, and the damage was considerably downplayed by Iranian officials.
The Educational Exercise
The academic seminar, ingeniously designed as a war game, thrust students into the shoes of Iran’s political actors. Each participant strove to assert influence over decisions that could reverberate globally. The Guardian Council sought to maintain internal power, while the IRGC, holding dominion over the nuclear program, resisted compromises on these ambitions. Concurrently, the Executive Branch, burdened with preventing regional warfare, found itself in the weakest negotiating position.
“Wargames — particularly academic ones — are not meant to be predictive, nor are they meant to validate any plan or concept.” – sources report.
Despite varied perspectives, all teams observed the U.S. handling of similar situations under past administrations. The Obama and Biden administrations saw more restrained Iranian responses. However, no team has considered abandoning the nuclear objective, emphasizing the geopolitical reality: Iran’s unshakeable resolve toward its nuclear goal. Every year, creative scenarios emerge, reflecting real-world tensions.
The Lessons Learned
The exercise concludes with a stark portrayal of Iran’s decision-making ecosystem. Regional stability hangs in a delicate balance, dependent on how these simulated strategies parallel government decisions. As Israel continues to navigate its strained relationship with Iran, military actions on both sides underscore the risk of escalation. The war games offer a sobering glimpse into potential futures, shaped by the tumultuous geopolitics of the Middle East.
“Since 2011, my graduate Red Team class at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs has had a final exercise in which the students play an Iranian reaction to what actually just happened with Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear program.” – Unknown.
The students’ exercise, reflective but not definitive, equips them to contend with the complex, real-world diplomacy surrounding nuclear deterrence and regional peace. As strategists in training, they leave the classroom understanding that while the games do not predict the future, they illuminate the vital need for sound, strategic planning in global affairs.
