WASHINGTON D.C. – A recent high-stakes geopolitical simulation, designed to model the immediate aftermath of a hypothetical conflict in Iran, has concluded, leaving a trail of unprecedented frustration among the global community of self-proclaimed experts. The multi-day exercise, which reportedly involved the simulated death of Iran's Supreme Leader following massive airstrikes, ran its course without a single pundit, former ambassador, or Twitter-verified 'analyst' being asked for their invaluable perspective.

“It’s a travesty,” lamented Dr. Thaddeus P. Quibble, a senior fellow at the Center for Perpetual Commentary, adjusting his meticulously knotted tie. “We had entire PowerPoint presentations ready on the 'Day After' scenarios, the 'Power Vacuum Dynamics,' even a slide dedicated to 'The Role of Regional Proxies in a Post-Khamenei Landscape.' All for naught.”

Sources close to the simulation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they didn't want to explain to Dr. Quibble why his 300-page white paper wasn't consulted, confirmed that the simulated events progressed entirely on their own, guided by pre-programmed algorithms and human decision-makers who apparently didn't need to hear about the historical parallels to the Peloponnesian War. Another analyst, Ms. Brenda 'The Oracle' Jenkins, expressed her dismay, noting, “I had a perfectly good take on the inevitable rise of a technocratic council. Now what am I supposed to do with it?”

The simulation's organizers have yet to issue a statement addressing the widespread feeling of intellectual redundancy, presumably because they are too busy running simulations where global experts are actually useful.