Iran War/Conflict/Operations/Special Military Mission

[bladesinger79]

I think we all saw this coming, right? Over thirty Steam Workshop and three standalone scenarios depicted Iran causing mayhem, not including all of the Iran-Iraq war missions.

Not one of them ever had the USA initiating the bru-haha, not even close.

I began a project of another Persian Gulf sandbox war, but gave up on it due to the complexity and massive amount of pieces involved. But this war? Damn. I wouldn't even know how to script this, I would leave this to experts like Gunner, etc.

[BDukes]

Yeah not sure how the geopolitical curve looks now given the different chaos these days. Good for reducing the anxiety around obsessing around realistic movie/book, game/scenario narratives. Bit more risky predictive markets, Vegas hotels will be full again

We don't have to dig too deep in to real-life history to develop scenario narratives where the objectives are murky, or ill thought, or ideologic, or theological, or whimsical, or stupid. The problem is for lots of reasons nobody or the consensus (if a consensus can exist) identifies it when it matters. We just point our fingers after the fact as if somehow we've evolved Where developing the narrative becomes unfun is addressing where it gets uncomfortable. I don't have mixed thoughts on Iran and IRGC getting a drubbing as its an easy right/wrong assessment. Its the murkiness and shadiness of the players and decisions around it. Maybe right goal but wrong people to do it, or wrong methods, who knows... Makers generally have the "they're not going to like this!" going through their heads anyways. It just another bs obstacle that exists in creative mind. This gunk adds to it. This probably answers the why many narratives don't appear.

The reality is it doesn't really matter as the game generally supports just following orders and generating commands to carry them out regardless of how x the objective is. What generates interest to build or download scenarios for me is it seems like a fun and smart escape that scratches my wargaming itch. This is largely why I develop and play my own and stick with scenario maker's that curate. I do try anybody's that seems to care enough to not generate what should be creative out of some soulless language model. Save that to generate code, etc.

Mike

[Mgellis]

Thoughts...

In strategic terms, I suspect we have blundered into a no-win situation.

If we simply "punish" Iran and withdraw, leaving the regime intact, I see things just getting worse. The new ayatollah is as much of a hardliner as his father was...and we just killed his parents, his wife, and his son. Have we just started an endless cycle of terror attacks by Iran around the world followed by air strikes from the US and Israel?

If we try to topple the regime, I can't imagine how we would do it without enormous loss of blood and treasure. And, with America distracted by a full-scale war in Iran, do other countries start mischief in their parts of the world, knowing we might not be able to tackle both crises at the same time?

If we did somehow topple the regime...what comes next? Given my trust in ANY administration to solve this problem, I suspect we will end up with an Iran in civil war. (I admit I would not mind if the Kurds were able to seize some territory and finally get a homeland. I've always kind of felt, "Well, my people have a homeland. Why shouldn't other groups like the Kurds get a homeland if that's something they want?" I'd also like to see Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and let the Palestinians finally have the West Bank and the Gaza as their homeland...but I think that dream is at best off the table for the next fifty years and possibly just dead at this point.) So...another Afghanistan, another Iraq, another Syria...not only creating misery for millions of people, but probably creating yet another haven for terrorists and criminals.

So, as I frequently say when I'm watching people make decisions in the beginning of a horror movie, "This will not end well for anyone."

(I do think, along with the actual war as inspiration for scenarios, speculative "Iran 2030" scenarios showing how parts of a possible future civil war play out might be interesting. I'm hoping it won't happen in real life, but...well...see my comment in the previous paragraph.)

[thewood1]

"another haven for terrorists and criminals"

Are you saying it wasn't one of the largest havens already. I think the mission was pretty clear. Destroy their strategic military capabilities. The one thing in this round I like hearing is we are going in without nation-building being the goal. Destroy the military and cash flow. Then move on.

Point 2...

Every time some big news happens, we get the same requests to do something in CMO like that. CMO is an operational level that is disconnected from policy. Its about the execution. And sometimes (maybe many times) execution is very one-sided. There is almost never organic balance in a battle. The only answer to trying to simulate something like this event is a heavy focus on scoring to drive behavior.

[Mgellis]

Point 2...

Every time some big news happens, we get the same requests to do something in CMO like that. CMO is an operational level that is disconnected from policy. Its about the execution. And sometimes (maybe many times) execution is very one-sided. There is almost never organic balance in a battle. The only answer to trying to simulate something like this event is a heavy focus on scoring to drive behavior.

I think you make a good point here. In terms of an operational simulator like CMO, America isn't going to "lose"--any realistic modeling of the US and Iran will have the US blowing up more Iranian stuff than they blow up our stuff. Scoring can be used to simulate things like political impact of certain losses or failures. So, hitting an Iranian target is worth a certain number of points, but Iran hitting a US target is a much bigger loss. You can also simulate the "cost" of war by giving the destruction of a weapon (i.e., it blows up when it is used to destroy something else) a point value. That means if it takes five tomahawks, instead of three, to destroy a target, you get less points for it.

[Mgellis]

"another haven for terrorists and criminals"

Are you saying it wasn't one of the largest havens already. I think the mission was pretty clear. Destroy their strategic military capabilities. The one thing in this round I like hearing is we are going in without nation-building being the goal. Destroy the military and cash flow. Then move on.

Not at all. My concern is that the current administration is going to bungle this and make things worse. (To be honest, I don't know if any administration could actually solve the problem that is Iran, but I fear this one is going to leave us with a situation that is truly FUBAR.)

[BDukes]

"another haven for terrorists and criminals"

Are you saying it wasn't one of the largest havens already. I think the mission was pretty clear. Destroy their strategic military capabilities. The one thing in this round I like hearing is we are going in without nation-building being the goal. Destroy the military and cash flow. Then move on.

Not at all. My concern is that the current administration is going to bungle this and make things worse. (To be honest, I don't know if any administration could actually solve the problem that is Iran, but I fear this one is going to leave us with a situation that is truly FUBAR.)

I think its the wrong people to take on the problem. What's weird about this is regardless who you are you at least know this without having to see evidence. Are the E files really telling us something we really didn't know about these people or anybody else in them?

I could developing a scenario that generates bizarro or impulsive 3am objectives that the CO will have to chase them That would be fun

[thewood1]

They might be the wrong people to take on the problem. But no one else has stepped up to try. Other than letting Iran keep on doing what it likes.

[TempestII]

I feel like it'd have to be a scenario pack / campaign rather than just the one scen. One for the defending the US bases and Gulf States from attack, at least one conducting SEAD / DEAD and attacking Iranian bases as well as other infrastructure, and finally one to escort ships through the SOH. I'm currently looking into at least a scen somewhat loosely based of doing the defensive portion of this war on 28 Feb and 01 March. The reported drop-off in drones and missiles fired since then is certainly notable.

[thewood1]

I think the key part is having limited (and untested) defensive resources. Then having a large area and collection of bases to defend. The game part is allocating everything optimally. After that, its just BMs firing and ABM systems counter-firing.

It might be somewhat interesting being on the Iran side and having allocate BMs to targets and then defending the launch sites with SAMs. But, again, once the action starts, its mostly watching it play out.

In both scenarios, the planning and locating that is the key part. Micromanaging the execution is something that does not reflect reality at all.

[TyphoonFr]

Not at all. My concern is that the current administration is going to bungle this and make things worse. (To be honest, I don't know if any administration could actually solve the problem that is Iran, but I fear this one is going to leave us with a situation that is truly FUBAR.)

The United States is the world's leading oil producer, and its exports declined in 2025 due to moderate consumption in Europe.
With rising oil prices, oil fields in the Americas (US, Canada, Venezuela) will become more profitable to exploit.
It is the Europeans who, having sanctioned Russia, will likely have to help resolve the problem, or buy US oil.

[thewood1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syDYVuW_n8s

https://www.reddit.com/r/CMANO/comments ... e_options/

[Tcao]

I don’t want to discuss U.S. domestic politics, but do this conflict (as well as the Russia–Ukraine war) indicate a shift in the nature of strategy? Are long-range, low-cost drones and USVs likely to create a major shock to existing great powers?

It seems somewhat analogous to how the emergence of iron weapons allowed smaller states and tribes with fewer resources to arm themselves on a large scale, thereby challenging the established powers of the Bronze Age. Today, long-range suicide drones and USVs give some weaker states and developing countries what could jokingly be called “poor man’s strategic bombing” and “poor man’s naval blockade.”

From a combat perspective, are we now entering an era in which offensive capabilities outweigh defensive ones? Are we returning to a new version of “the bomber will always get through”? Could Giulio Douhet’s ideas in The Command of the Air—especially his theories on strategic bombing and even his advocacy of attacking civilian targets—gain renewed attention among modern military theorists?

In the Russia–Ukraine war, both sides have created area-denial against the other’s air force. This allows each side to safely stockpile munitions in the rear and then launch coordinated strikes. These coordinated attacks combine ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and inexpensive long-range suicide drones.

At present, the U.S. and Israeli air forces appear to have achieved complete air superiority, which has been quite effective in suppressing and destroying Iranian ballistic missile launch capabilities. However, whether they can effectively suppress the damage caused by Shahed drones remains to be seen.

Another point is that ground-based early-warning radars (such as the THAAD radar) have demonstrated their vulnerability. Perhaps countries will need to accelerate the deployment of early-warning systems in space. This would not only improve survivability but also enhance early detection of hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and hypersonic cruise missiles flying in the upper atmosphere.

[FTBSS]

What leads you to believe this admin will bungle this if anything their foreign policy decisions have been amazing.

Panama no longer a chinese vassel
Venezuela becoming a productive pro west country instead of a failed narco state
Cuba looking like the communist regime is on last legs.
Expanding the abraham accords
removing Iran from the brink of Nuclear capability.
Stopped the indian pakistani war from escalating beyond the ability to stop
7 other regional wars stopped or at least tensions reduced significantly.

You may not like Trump but our state department under Rubio appears to be the best in my long memory.

[ShadowB]

Strategically speaking, the current Iran situation is a kick to the hornet's nest whose resulting variables are too many to accurately predict.

As a regime change operation it's a botched, myopic attempt that only really contemplated a military dimension, which is patently not enough in the absence of equally important diplomatic, political, economic and covert dimensions. Iranian command & control doctrine has been designed with distribution in mind.

If the objective is to "defang" Iran, unfortunately that's likely a pipe dream with only a military hammer. You can destroy a number of conventional avenues for them, like the navy and surface-level ballistic missile production capabilities. But this is an entrenched, zealous regime which has been planning for this for decades. Give them their desired Ragnarok and you'll validate their prophecies and their zeal.

I can't say for certain, but so far it doesn't look like they'd mind being driven underground and giving up their middle-power status for the ability to freely attack wherever and whenever they want in less conventional ways. Is the "devolution" from semi-legitimate sovereign state to large terrorist organization worth it and/or sustainable for them? Can they maintain a grip on their population under this level of pressure? Can the US politically and economically maintain said level of pressure as long as necessary? Doctrinally speaking, attrition is Iran's goal, the imposition of costs the US is theoretically not able to bear. Are they right? I believe the United States is hamstrung not by economy but politics: Trump's whim changes daily, and if he decides to pull the plug tomorrow, call it a win and blame someone else for not having won harder (i.e. the Iranian people for not rising up, Europe for not helping secure Hormuz), then the situation is FUBAR.

As for the nuclear angle, it can only be delayed, and especially now Iran will be dead-set on the goal. They know all the negotiations and playing nice with the neighbors didn't work out for them. They still got attacked, so as long as the regime remains in place, they'll seek the only tool that will provide them real deterrence.

Anyway, CMO, yes, this is either a campaign and/or a big scenario(s) where you have to optimize resource allocation, minimize losses and maximize impact. Which typed out like that sounds like every scenario ever, ha. It's either a numbers game with an end goal to get a good score, or a semi-realistic, semi-fictional narrative which allows for a happy ending if you manage your assets well and support covert initiatives with your military operations.

The mission(s) would end up with the US-backed Iranian Army, the people and a totally-not-fragmented opposition rising up against the IRGC in a short civil war that may even see the return of the Shah's son. The Kurds may even get a little independent state of their own, and Turkey totally wouldn't mind and

[Mgellis]

Look, I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect if we look at Iran in six months or a year (and possibly some of the other countries you mentioned, too) we will see a train wreck (or train wrecks) that make the following scene look mild by comparison...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViKVPfb2hJ4
(just watch the whole thing...it's only 35 seconds...and, yes, I fear this how much of the world sees the American eagle at this point...)

What leads you to believe this admin will bungle this if anything their foreign policy decisions have been amazing.

Panama no longer a chinese vassel
Venezuela becoming a productive pro west country instead of a failed narco state
Cuba looking like the communist regime is on last legs.
Expanding the abraham accords
removing Iran from the brink of Nuclear capability.
Stopped the indian pakistani war from escalating beyond the ability to stop
7 other regional wars stopped or at least tensions reduced significantly.

You may not like Trump but our state department under Rubio appears to be the best in my long memory.

[1nutworld]

What leads you to believe this admin will bungle this if anything their foreign policy decisions have been amazing.

Panama no longer a chinese vassel
Venezuela becoming a productive pro west country instead of a failed narco state
Cuba looking like the communist regime is on last legs.
Expanding the abraham accords
removing Iran from the brink of Nuclear capability.
Stopped the indian pakistani war from escalating beyond the ability to stop
7 other regional wars stopped or at least tensions reduced significantly.

You may not like Trump but our state department under Rubio appears to be the best in my long memory.

Trump is CLUELESS and doing the bidding of Israel and Saudi Arabia in this whole thing. He had and continues to have ZERO ability to think beyond making "real estate" deal

That you think Trump stopped any other conflicts just shows that you are one of the gullible ones that he relies on to buy into all of his con-man bullsh*t. Oh, and while I don't buy any of Trump's We obliterated Iran's Nuclear capabilities over the summer, nor are were they close to developing anything to be of any immediate threat, however, their facilities do need to be blasted with bombs as much as possible as long as they continue to have nuclear designs as part of how their government operates.