The game continues like this in a tit-for-tat fashion. Despite several Iranian attempts to sway Saudi Arabia, the kingdom continues to open its airspace to Israeli jets. I lose only two aircraft to Iranian defenses, but on the other hand, the heavily reinforced structures at Natanz prove difficult to damage. Iran's missiles continue to land on Israel, but public morale proves resilient. In the end, Israel squeaks by with a victory. Several Iranian nuclear sites have been damaged (thank you, bunker-buster bombs), but the cost is captured Israeli pilots paraded on Iranian TV and Israeli kids spending their days in bomb shelters.
So is Persian Incursion actually useful for understanding how an Israeli strike on Iran might unfold? No and yes. My first reaction is that it's a lovely game set in an alternate universe where Turkey is still an Israeli ally and the Arab Spring is still winter. But to be fair, we are talking about the Middle East; any game would be obsolete three months after it hit the shelves.
Militarily, the game demonstrates that Iran has as much chance of stopping an Israeli strike as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does of becoming an ayatollah, but then again, Iran doesn't need to shoot down many Israeli planes. Every F-16 burning in the desert reaps Tehran a rich political harvest. Think Gilad Shalit multiplied by nine or 10 captured Israeli airmen.
The game does allow for some surprise events, such as a "press leak" or "anti-war riots," that influence the political tracks. And there are unpleasant surprises, like an "industrial accident" in Iran that damages a nuclear site or an "intifada" against Israel.
But there's also the glaring omission of Iran's proxy force, Hezbollah. Bond, the game's creator, told me that the Lebanese organization would not have time to react to an Israeli air campaign. This seems a bizarre oversight: Clearly, Hezbollah would have military as well as political roles in the conflict. Ten minutes after the first bombs fell on Iran and well before Israel launched any follow-up strikes, southern Lebanese skies would be milky with Katyusha rocket trails, and the swarm of Israeli Air Force drones on the border would fill the air with the buzz of propellers.
Additionally, the game doesn't allow for an Iranian military response on any country but Israel. If Saudi Arabia allows Israeli jets to transit its airspace, might not Iran respond with military action against it (which in turn could drag in the United States)? Persian Incursion cries out for some rule updates. But that's the beauty of an old-fashioned board game versus a video game. No need to wait months for a software patch. With just a few strokes of a pen, you can add your own rules to simulate the effects of Hezbollah or the Arab Spring.
Despite its flaws, I learned a lot from this game. It managed to capture the essence of an Israeli-Iranian conflict, which is that both sides would wage war by very different means. I focused on the nuts and bolts of conducting a complex and difficult Israeli air campaign, while Colonel Noob had to be more patient and subtle, compensating for Israeli military superiority by judiciously striking at public opinion with missiles and terrorist attacks, seeking to politically isolate Israel and deny it allies.
The real question of this exercise, however, is whether an Israeli strike on Iran is a good or bad idea. Persian Incursion's answer is an unqualified "maybe." Israel can't stop Iran from retaliating with missile attacks and terrorism. But it also can't guarantee complete destruction of Iran's nuclear program. Perhaps most importantly, the key to victory is winning the public-opinion, political war.
So was it fun? Sure, but let's just hope it stays a game.