“One of the most important lessons this exercise offered was to learn how to play off the actions of other players, even when it did not directly involve us. Understanding the intent and actions of others, and finding opportunities to use them to our advantage, was just as critical as strategically utilizing our own resources.”
– Logan West, IWP Professional Doctoral Student in Statecraft and Strategy, North Korean (DPRK) Team
The Hedgemony map, which is divided into U.S. Combatant Command Areas, shows each team’s deployed forces. Game facilitators mimic real-world U.S. and adversary force positions as needed.IWP and visiting Georgetown University students played the RAND-designed global defense planning game Hedgemony in mid-November in the Marlatt Mansion, but it was a different experience from the last two runnings of the game last spring and in the fall of 2024. This time, the primary goal of the game was to support the students from Dr. Wayne Schroder’s Nuclear Strategy and Arms Control Course (IWP 682), who formed Team USA.
As such, the game scenario literally kicked off with a bang, as the DPRK conducted its first full nuclear test since 2007, and Iran attempted but failed to conduct a small above-ground nuclear test using a “donated” DPRK device smuggled into Iran. The real-world damage done to the Iranian nuclear program by U.S. and Israeli military forces last summer forced Iran into this desperate move.
Dr. Schroeder advises his students playing Team USA.As usual, the teams were divided into Blue (the U.S. Defense Department and NATO/EU) and Red (Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea) teams. With the exception of the NATO/EU team, the remaining teams were all staffed by IWP students.
The game revolves around the U.S.’ ability to use finite national resources to maintain, upgrade, and deploy U.S. forces globally in concert with NATO, and if need be, fight Red either kinetically or in the grey zone. The game integrates domestic and international events through a “White Cell” that can impact any of the six countries’ strategies.
The White Cell was represented by retired CIA wargamer James Olson, who enjoyed assisting in the game. “It was great to see the students on all of the teams deeply engaged in the game. No one appeared to be bored, and they took the game seriously but still seemed to have fun,” said Olson.
Jim Olson in the White Cell orchestrates a devilish turn of events for an unsuspecting team. Also assisting was IWP Wargame Club member Alec Bullough.The second change to this game was the presence of John Yurchak, a senior defense analyst with Rand Corporation and one of the original co-designers of Hedgemony. He is working on an update to the game (now 8 years old) to be published in the future and was invited by game facilitator (and game co-designer) Prof. Michael Linick to watch the game interactions and collect data. Prof. Linick, who now teaches at Georgetown, brought along two of his students to play the EU/NATO team.
“Having two students from Mike’s course brought in a new and unknown dynamic to the game, which is always welcome. The EU/NATO team put pressure on Team Russia which was stuck in the Ukraine and unable to act elsewhere,” said IWP practitioner-scholar Aaron Danis, who coordinates the game at IWP each semester.
Mike Linick (C) and John Yurchak (R) present options to Team USA with Team EU/NATO behind them.
Team Iran plays the proxy card, literally, as Team Russia watches.IWP graduate student Michael DiCianna, who played on Team Iran, stated that, “Following the fall of Assad (in Syria), the attrition of (Iranian) proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, and Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER (U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear targets), wargaming Iran is really a test of patience and creativity. However, it also shows how a regional threat can be ‘down but not out.’”
After its first nuclear test failed, Iran decided not to commit more resources to conduct a retest but fell back on its tried-and-true proxy grey-zone strategy against U.S. Gulf allies.
Uneasy allies DPRK and China share a table, but an interesting feature of the game is that China can “lose” if the DPRK “wins,” so there is Chinese incentive to work with the US to restrain DPRK.After three turns, each representing a year, the game ended with no one having “won,” but with the DPRK in a strong position. More than one team can “win,” and over the long-haul (say 8 turns, or the equivalent of a two-term U.S. administration), anything can happen.
“The players find out that it is hard to change the status quo without having a solid strategy, leveraging partners, and wisely committing limited resources,” Prof. Danis said. The game will run again in the spring, and students should stay alert for an e-mail soliciting players.
“The wargame showed how international relations concepts work in practice, particularly how states navigate the security dilemma and how to manage limited resources.”
– Georgetown student Abdallah Ali, Team EU/NATO
Blue and Red united for pizza and an end-of-game photo.