Students at George Washington University recently participated in a unique simulation that mirrored a real-world crisis involving Iran and Israel. For over a decade, the graduate Red Team class at the Elliott School of International Affairs has engaged in these exercises, where students role-play different factions of the Iranian government. This year, the scenario became particularly relevant as it coincided with actual events following an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program.
In the simulation, students were divided into three main groups representing key Iranian power factions: the Guardian Council, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Executive Branch. Each group had its own interests and objectives. The Guardian Council focused on maintaining its power and protecting its economic interests. The IRGC, which oversees Iran’s military capabilities, was primarily concerned with controlling the population and furthering its nuclear ambitions. The Executive Branch aimed to manage the crisis and prevent it from escalating into a broader conflict, though it was often seen as the weakest faction.
As tensions rose, the students had to decide how Iran would respond to a proposal from the United States aimed at containing the crisis. They had three main options: launch a significant missile or drone strike on Israel, close the Straits of Hormuz to disrupt shipping, or retaliate through proxy groups. Importantly, the American proposal included strict inspection measures that Iran would have to accept.
Historically, Iranian responses in these simulations have been cautious, especially during the Obama and Biden administrations. Students often chose to retaliate indirectly through groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, while also agreeing to some inspections, albeit with intentions to subvert them. However, this year marked a shift. The simulation reflected a more aggressive stance, mirroring real-world developments where Iran launched a large-scale retaliatory strike against Israel almost immediately after the Israeli attack.
The students explained that their strategy was to adopt a long-term perspective, hoping to wear down the resolve of Israel and the West, similar to the North Vietnamese strategy during the Vietnam War. This shift in approach raised questions about the Iranian leadership’s confidence and willingness to endure significant consequences.
An interesting aspect of this year’s simulation was that it did not account for the decapitation strikes against the IRGC leadership that occurred in reality. Additionally, the absence of a civilian team in the simulation left out the potential responses from the Iranian population, creating a gap in understanding how public sentiment might influence the government’s decisions.
As the instructor reflected on the exercise, he noted that he would have to create a new scenario for future classes, a task he finds challenging. The recent events have underscored the complexities of Iranian politics and the potential for escalation in the region, making these simulations more relevant than ever.