[Eli]

I think this game has run its course.

Venky what evidence do have that it would be a 1945 type bomb? The Iranian nuclear program seems to be much more advanced than just that.

They are using modern nuclear technology and expertise from the Russians who know how to build big bombs.

Anyway they already have the ballistic missile technology that would make even a 1945 bomb as you call it lethal enough to take out Tel-Aviv and other major Israeli cities.


There is still no pressure on Iran to give up their nuclear weapons, the idea that Iran is going to give up their nuclear ambitions after Israel just attacked them is beyond ridiculous. But if you insist Iran would do this then Israel says we would like to buy the world coke and burst into song singing "Give peace a chance" by John Lennon while gently swaying back and forth. And all nuclear weapons around the world are destroyed and peace reigns on earth for ever more.


At this point in the game with Russia and China backing them they would have Israel at their mercy there is no way they would let up on them now. Iran could keep its nuclear program and still win huge concessions through negotiations.

I do think though however at this point both Israel and the US are forced into a negotiated settlement. Any other moves are going to get nuclear which is just no fun to play because we would all be dead.

I am done.

[venky]

Somewhat true.

Ofcourse Israel, would never agree to give up its nuclear arsenal, but due to recent geopolitical events (in the game), the situation has changed. Israel has lost the moral high ground due to its aggressive acts. Any negotiations to involve nuclear disarmament in the middle east will now include both Israel and Iran and not just Iran.

The Iranian proposal is just a recognition of this changed geopolitical reality and to bring pressure to bear on Israel, not an idealic wish for universal peace. Israel will never agree to this deal, 200 warheads for 2?

What I hoped to show, was that if Iran is going to go nuclear there is nothing the West can do to stop them, barring regime change like in Iraq. And Israel will gain little and probably lose a lot through unilateral strikes. Nuclear non-proliferation can never work as long as it benifits only one side and is discriminatory. The current nuclear regime can only be maintained by force, and even then will not be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It has already failed in the case of North Korea.

[Eli]

Now most of that I do agree with.

An Israel attack would be an unbelievable messy undertaking and in the long run would fail. If Russia and China got into it as you played they did things would get really hairy for the US too.


Long term however I do not think there is going to be a lasting peace until either the Israelis are gone or the Arabs are. Any peace made between them is just going to delay the war that is to come.

[seahorse2]

Some other observations:

(1) It seemed a critical mistake for Israel to go into Lebanon. Things may have played out much differently if Israel had not inflamed the issue by going into Lebanon;

(2) I don't know how effective exploding nuclear weapons would be in space - in terms of taking out satellites. I've read about it some on the net, it is a real possibility. I assume that the Russians and Chinese would do something like this. If effective, how effective? Arguably, it could really hurt the United States military and intelligence assets. Would the U.S. be able to target cruise missiles, for example? I don't know.

(3) America's weakness is the need for oil. I don't know if Chavez would intentionally sabotage his own refineries here in the US, but he might. If so, it would hurt.

(4) Another last ditch effort for Chavez would be to use the Russian migs he bought (equipped with suburn missles) to attack U.S. oil refineries/facilities, like the offshore Louisianna oil terminal. Last I heard, these migs were in Cuba training. If even one or two got through, it would hurt.

(5) I don't know how realistic it would be to trap US ground forces in Iraq by closing the straights to shipping traffic, disabling a tanker for example. However, if the Basra terminal and shipping traffic in the gulf were stopped, I think U.S. ground forces would have a hard time being resupplied. If this were coupled with a loss of satellie capabilities, it could pose a serious problem. Napoleon had the same problems in Egypt

(6) Keep in mind that Sun Tzu said one should win by not having to fight. In the above scenario, the Russians/Chinese won by utilitzing this strategy. The SCO and US never fought. However, the SCO won without fighting by dividing and conquering. They made all attempts to stay good with the EU, etc. The US, instead of being confrontational, should try the same. They should do everything possible not to alienate Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries to prevent or stall an embargo. Further, if such an embargo ensues, the U.S. may say let the Russians have the ME, we'll secure deals with the Venezuelans they can't refuse. If would be very important, strategically, for the U.S. not to alienate Chavez if something happens in the ME. If for no other reason, we need their oil to replace ME oil. Further, it would be impossible for the U.S. to fight wars in Venezuela, ME, Taiwan, and South Korea.

[Eli]

Yeah I think invading may have been a mistake but if Iran funded and supported Hezbollah did start to attack that is exactly what Israel might do. I think it Israel would more likely just begin limited targeted strikes against hostile forces in the area not a full scale invasion.

I think they see Syria and Hezbollah as more of an immediate threat.

This whole thing leads me to believe that Israelis are not going to attack because it is inevitable that Iran will get the bomb one way or another.

Man I am glad I am not one of the guys who has to come up with what to do about Iran, but unfortunately for all of us we are all just pawns who have to pay the price for what they do decided to do.

[smallpoxgirl]

(4) Another last ditch effort for Chavez would be to use the Russian migs he bought (equipped with suburn missles) to attack U.S. oil refineries/facilities, like the offshore Louisianna oil terminal. Last I heard, these migs were in Cuba training. If even one or two got through, it would hurt.

Well....obviously we were as anxious as anyone else not to see this explode into full fledged war. Making a military strike at the continental US is indeed a pretty last ditch thing to do. I was working on negotiations to move more forces up to Cuba. Maybe threaten Guantonamo or even Southern Florida. Definitely prefferable to menace and threaten without having to actually follow through. Forces the US to deal with another threat source without taking losses from engaging them head-on. Actually a joint Cuba, Venezuala attack on US forces on Guantonamo would be an interesting strategy for causing a big distraction, limiting the engagement, and garnering support with the Caribean nations. Hard for the American's to play the wounded party too much there.

I'm also not sure that another hit to US petroleum would have ultimately made that much difference. Obviously the US economy was going to tank big and soon with the embargo as it was. The situation was pretty untenable for them already. With martial law and strict rationing, the US could probably make do without OPEC oil for a while, but it would trash the economy. Also, our desire was never to see the US annialated. Chavez doesn't want Americans to starve. He just wants them to play ball as equal partners and not try to run the show. Ultimately, we got what we wanted.

One thing about the way things played out that I'm not sure was very realistic was the OPEC embargo vote. I'm not sure I can see Indonesia or Kuwait turning on the US like that.

[seahorse2]

Smallpox,

I agree that the best strategy is to allow the U.S. to fissile out without attacking them head on. I only see this working if the U.S. can be prevented from militarily securing oil in the ME. Unless the U.S. military can be significantly slowed, for example, by taking out the satellites, I think it would be difficult to stop a hostile takeover of ME oil reserves. In the situation that we created here, I think the vast majority of Americans would support wiping out anyone in the middle east that was trying to keep us from the oil. It wouldn't be this occupation trying to set up democracies. It would be allowing the US military to do what it does best, kill and dominate at all cost. So, unless their technical advantage could be severely hampered, I think the US would seize the various oil fields/facilities and hold them at all cost.

Even if the US economy tanks, that doesn't stop their ability to wage war (ie the Germans in WWII). The only real way to stop the US ability to wage war is to dry up their supply of refined product. Thus, Chavez, if desparate, could easily attempt to dent the US's ability to refine product. Someone else here will know, but it seems there are less than 30 refineries in the US. If these were knocked out, then the tanks, planes etc don't have gas to run on, and the military comes to a grinding halt. The SPR wouldn't help if it can't be refined. In the game scenario, this is the problem faced by US forces in Iraq when they couldn't be resupplied.

With Cuba only being 90 miles from the US coast, an attack on US refineries is a real military risk to the US. It is the soft underbelly. The U.S. has problems stopping small planes and boats drug smuggling. Imagine what a concerted effort could do, with Migs, especially in a Pearl Harbor type attack.

[venky]

Some observations

1. I dont think that it is that easy to close the straits of Hormuz, they are too wide. My dad sailed through the straits when he was in the Indian navy, they are very wide. The only way the straits could be closed was through a dominant surface fleet and the only country possessing such a navy in the region is the US. Ofcourse a country like Iran could disrupt traffic by attacking tankers; causing oil prices to skyrocket. Alternately Chinese missles in Iranian hands could cause unacceptable damage on the US fleet in the Persian gulf forcing it to withdraw from the Persian gulf.

2. While a unanimous OPEC vote would seem unlikely, that would entirely depend on how aggressive the US/Israel actions get. If it were only Iran that were attacked countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would probably oppose the embargo. But I dont think they could stand by while 3 muslim countries were attacked by Israel. The governments would certainly not survive. Note, that I made the announcement of the embargo only after Israel attacked Lebanon.

Finally, what scares me the most is still how close the world is still to an all out nuclear exchange. I dont think Russia and China will stand by and watch if Iran is invaded or attacked by the US/Israel, the geopolitical consequences of 70% of the world's oil passing into US hands is too much to risk. So Russian and Chinese troops entering Iran is I think, not too unrealistic option. A rational US administration would not force the issue at this stage, but I dont think that the Bush administration is rational. So even if an all out global war is not the most likely of scenario's, I dont think that it can be ruled out in case there is an attack or invasion of Iran.

[Jake_old]

I feel really bad for missing the last day of this great role play.(problems at work)

However I realise the UK is impotent once escalation of violence begins as we do not have the resources or influence. There would have been a massive political split, massive demonstrations on the street. Who knows what would have emerged as the stable power base.

IMO France and Germany would have been more involved, they are big players after all, but I have no idea what idea they would or could have come up with.

Hope to see something similar played again some day.

[Eli]

Agreed Venky

It was unnerving to see that we are basically two moves away from a nuclear exchange. I think Israel would do more air strikes not actual invasions with ground troops and no country in the world right now is interested invading Iran.

God help us all if a terrorist ever gets hold of a nuclear bomb.


I also thought it was interesting to see how quickly the US lost control over it's options. Quickly became clear that the words super power really didn't mean anything.

Also hats off to Venky because I think if Iran did hold back and only responded in a limited way through Hezbollah they would win a whole lot more than they ever could militarily.

[0mar]

The Saudis and Kuwaiti governments are our friends, but their populaces are most certainly not. If actions by Israel were to play out like that, those governments face the very real risk of revolution if there weren't actions taken (militarily or otherwise) against Israel and the US.

[Free]

Regarding the EU I think it is quite clear that it would reduced to a marginal role at best, as we saw before in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Institutions like EU-presidency or Commissioner of Foreign Policy are symbolic at most, nobody will take their calls even if they would want to make some.

If something really is at stake geopolitically, it's every European nation on its own again, like always before. Also, the conflict we saw would open up the gap between continental Europe and the UK even more...

However, regarding the economical fallout from such a crisis, or an oil embargo for example the EU could really play out some interior strengths here, with organizing an EU emergency plan.
I am convinced on this level all members would pull in the same direction, even the UK, as it is in everybody's interest to limit damage to the economy.

[Jake_old]

Regarding the EU I think it is quite clear that it would reduced to a marginal role at best, as we saw before in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Institutions like EU-presidency or Commissioner of Foreign Policy are symbolic at most, nobody will take their calls even if they would want to make some.

If something really is at stake geopolitically, it's every European nation on its own again, like always before. Also, the conflict we saw would open up the gap between continental Europe and the UK even more...

However, regarding the economical fallout from such a crisis, or an oil embargo for example the EU could really play out some interior strengths here, with organizing an EU emergency plan.
I am convinced on this level all members would pull in the same direction, even the UK, as it is in everybody's interest to limit damage to the economy.

I don't see Iran as remotely like Iraq. Surely this is far more important an issue.(excuse the term important I refer to what I think is our leaders way of thinking).

I agree it would split the UK from Europe already, but could you explain why the EU wouldn't be more active? Would they really just sit there talking?

As Europe is at the centre of world trade, in whatever era, I assumed we (as a continent) had more power! Is this delusional?

Serious question btw.

[Eli]

Omar do not even bring that up.


No seriously, that is a very good point there could be a hostile coup de tat take over in Saudi if their was a popular uprising. This happen without Israel doing anything

Man that would be a friggin mess for the US.

The whole area really is one big tinderbox and one match could send the whole place up in flames.

[Free]

I agree it would split the UK from Europe already, but could you explain why the EU wouldn't be more active? Would they really just sit there talking?

As Europe is at the centre of world trade, in whatever era, I assumed we (as a continent) had more power! Is this delusional?

I am afraid yes - they would just sit there talking in Brussels while they would act in Paris, London, Berlin.

You are right of course that the EU SHOULD play a bigger role on the world stage with a common foreign policy, but the problem is that at the moment the nations are not ready yet to concede their power of souvereign foreign policy to the EU.

The European Union is still very much work in progress, there isn't even a constitution yet.
In my opinion this is a "make or break it" question. Either the EU will speak with one voice at some point, or it will break apart (if even only informal) in several "gravity centers".

UK plays a key role here - they have to decide between US and EU at some point, or the EU will make the decision for them.

[Jake_old]

Well if we take too long, then too bad, for us. Given time we WILL join the single currency. Not because we want to, but need to.

I for one don't care what picture is on my pound notes, the average guy does.

sigh..

I will take comfort (I hope) in the fact that it is in everyones interests right now and to the near future, to prevent a war in Western Europe.

[smallpoxgirl]

In the situation that we created here, I think the vast majority of Americans would support wiping out anyone in the middle east that was trying to keep us from the oil.

So your suggesting a sort of a labesraum/manifest destiny approach? Kill every thing that moves? I dunno. Even Hitler ended up fizzling with that approach. Lots of mental breakdowns in the SS. The US pulled it off pretty effectively against the Indians, but they had a much more unified ideology - Christian vs. Savage. I'm not sure that the consumer vs. terrorist motif generates quite the same feelings. Critical principle. In order to do great evil, one must convince himself that he is doing good. Wasting a million people while calling them terrorists doesn't wash very well. America would have to figure out a way to paint itself as the liberator. Hitler tried to play the master race fighting for the future of humanity bit. It was weak and contrived and few people bought it completely, thus he eventually lost momentum.

Also people will fight you with everything they have if they know the alternative is anhiliation. The way to win wars is to convince people not to fight you. That was one of the big mistakes the US made in Vietnam and is now making in Iraq. If people are desperate enough, they will wear you into the ground using sharpened pieces of bamboo as weapons.

[seahorse]

Smallpox,

I agree, but I think that the Middle East may fulfill all the prerequisits you list for Americans to be willing to go all out. As you point out, the Americans supported the slaughter of Indians for two reasons that I see - religious, but also, capitalist. The Indians were sitting on the gold and land that Americans wanted. This is present in the Middle East - they are predominantly Muslim and also, have the resources we need. As Kunstler said on the Peak Oil DVD, Americans will not easily give up their way of life. Cheney said it better, the American way of life is not negotiable. I do think that if Iran or OPEC tried to cut off American oil, Americans would more than justify a slaughter to protect what they feel are their rights against a bunch of non-Christian savages. Unlike Vietnam or Iraq, Americans would know why they are fighting. If Carter was willing to use force, Bush/Cheney could be convinced. Americans have not forgotten the taking of the embassy and humiliation of holding American hostages for so long. There's a lot of emotion building between Iran and the U.S., and I don't see how the pressure can be let out safely.

Venky, I also don't know how easy it would be to close the straights. I remember reading a news article sometime during the last year about a Russian ship stalled or grounded that blocked tanker traffic in the straights for a couple of days. I used that as an example in this role play, I don't know how realistic that was. I will try to find that old article and post it if I find it.

[venky]

I agree that the scenario played out too quickly.

But I do think that if Iran was threatened with an imminent invasion, it turning to Russia or China for help would not be unrealistic. What I am actually uncertain is whether Russia or China would risk a full-fledged conflict with the US at this stage. US superiority is still too great. But on the other hand, the prospect of Iran passing into the US sphere of influence like Iraq will be too costly for Russia and China.

[smallpoxgirl]

But on the other hand, the prospect of Iran passing into the US sphere of influence like Iraq will be too costly for Russia and China.

I can definitely see China's interest. What is Russia's compeling interest in Iran? (honest question)