A war game organized by Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institute's Saban Center for Middle East Policy was conducted to examine the reactions of both the United States and Iran during escalated events concerning Iran's nuclear program and the United States' reactions to attacks by Iran, as reported by David Ignatius of the Washington Post.
Of interest, and what Mr Ignatius pointed out is that
"The game showed how easy it was for each side to misread the other’s
signals. And these players were separated by a mere corridor in a
Washington think tank, rather than half a world away.
This highlights one of the greatest problems we currently face in dealing with not only Iran, but other countries within the Middle East and Asia: A mere vague grasp on how our perceptions and personal biases can distort the intentions and actions of state actors. While we usually tend to embrace the idea of cultural awareness on a superficial level, this game highlights (in some what exaggerated terms) the inability for hypothetical leaders to interpret actions of our opponents correctly.
These "small miscalculations" ended a scenario in a likely war outcome, which could have been avoided had more diplomatic interactions possibly occurred. It begs to question then how much political face leaders in the US would attempt to preserve in a real world situation like this, and attempt to publicly retaliate against Iran, versus attempting to identify the problem and tackle it in diplomatic channels.
There needs to be more scenarios like this, more dry runs, more rehearsals, not only with actual government participants, but with other countries as well. This scenario provided an in depth lesson, one that could be used to prevent us from making rash and damaging decisions in a real world scenario.