Subsequent to the US Civil War, the only major war that was won-- in the sense that the supposed loser did not rearm and renew hostilities against the supposed victor within a short span of time-- was WWII. That war, which ended with the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, transformed two of the most militaristic countries on the planet for the prior century or so into very pacifist countries. Why? Because the civilian populations of those countries were made to suffer extraordinary privation and death, with the result that the post-war civilian populations of those countries will not support or tolerate leaders who would lead them into another war (at least not for four or five generations at least). My Question: Does the game discussed in the article envision an option that would involve the rapid destruction of much of Iranian infrastructure, cities (cf. German and Japanese cities in WWII), population by conventional warhead and nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles? This would bring the war to a quick end, and would obviate the need for an occupation. Then simply warn Iran (and any other country) that any future threats of nuclear war to wipe another country off the map will simply result in the immediate massive destruction of the country threatening such action or initiating a terrorit campaign to bring about the same result.
Jordan foreign minister says to speak with Kerry on Israel-Palestinian conflict (Reuters)
from the article: Game: You are the president, now decide - do we attack Iran?