They never publicly said either way because that would have been a diplomatic nightmare. But it's clear the game only makes sense if red team was Iran. > In 2

They never publicly said either way because that would have been a diplomatic nightmare. But it's clear the game only makes sense if red team was Iran. > In 2002 the Pentagon ran an expensive wargame designed to simulate what a war with Iran would be like—and the U.S. lost heavily. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millenni... > That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-general-led-a-fictional-iran-against-the-us-military-and-won/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-g... > Learning Curve: Iranian Asymmetrical Warfare and Millennium Challenge 2002 https://cimsec.org/learning-curve-iranian-asymmetrical-warfare-millennium-challenge-2002-2/ https://cimsec.org/learning-curve-iranian-asymmetrical-warfa... Iraq's military was set up completely different than what red team did, as Iraq tried to have a traditional, symmetric military. This is because, as a minority controlled nation, they were attracted to the added legitimacy it gave their regime to not have a focus on assymetric warfare. Tanks in columns make the state look stronger to the populace, even if you get trounced in an actual battle.