site banner
PaperclipPerfector  26d ago (text post)   34038 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump has bombed Iran's nuclear sites, using B2 bombers dropping 30,000-pound massive ordinance penetrators. All aircraft have successfully cleared Iranian airspace, and Trump is claiming that all three nuclear sites were wiped out. No word that I've seen of a counter-attack from Iran, as yet.

AOC has concluded that a president ordering an airstrike without congressional approval is grounds for impeachment. Fetterman thinks it was the right move. Both are, I suppose, on brand.

My feelings are mixed. I absolutely do not want us signing up for another two decades of invading and inviting the middle east, and of all the places I'd pick with a gun to my head, Iran would be dead last. I do not think our military is prepared for a serious conflict at the moment, because I think there's a pretty good likelihood that a lot of our equipment became suddenly obsolete two or three years ago, and also because I'm beginning to strongly suspect that World War 3 has already started and we've all just just been a bit slow catching on. That said, I am really not a fan of Iran, and while I could be persuaded to gamble on Iran actually acquiring nukes, it's still a hell of a gamble, and the Israelis wiping Iran's air defense grid made this about the cheapest alternative imaginable. I have zero confidence that diplomacy was ever going to work; it's pretty clear to me that Iran wanted nukes, and that in the best case this would result in considerable proliferation and upheaval. Now, assuming the strikes worked, that issue appears to be off the table for the short and medium terms. That... seems like a good thing? Maybe?

I'm hoping what appears to me to be fairly intense pressure to avoid an actual invasion keeps American boots of Iranian soil. As with zorching an Iranian general in Iraq during Trump's first term, this seems like a fairly reasonable gamble, but if we get another forever war out of this, that would be unmitigated disaster.

The vibes I'm getting is that Trump was way too bullish on the success of the Fordow strikes. Partly this is just Trump to a T: would he ever admit something didn't go well right away? Per this link, not only Fordow it buried deeper than the MOP bomb is actually rated for (~260 feet vs max disclosed bunker depth of 200, though that figure might be misdirection), but also we only possess about 30 of them -- so we'd only be able to make one more pass or so, given that it was reported that 14 were used. That is to say, a sustained bombing campaign might not have done much more. At least with a single strong strike, you can still deflect most of the blame on Israel, because it really is mostly opportunist. Satellite imagery is hard to parse, and obviously tells you little about the underground condition of the facility, but it's still plausible the cave-ins weren't super extensive. Source which also mentions that there's another facility in Isfahan that also has some deep underground areas, plus the chance Iran has a complex that the US/Israel don't know about, plus the fact that as noted here in thread, the uranium itself was almost certainly moved.

For Iran, in terms of the simple pros and cons, if they really has suffered a multi-year setback, I think there would be a certain logic to setting up a new deal, despite looking weak. There's still probably room for more carrot even so. If we say they really did get a major setback, by making a deal are you truly giving anything up? You'd only be giving up on something you no longer fully have. I was impressed by the initial Trump response to emphasize that he didn't necessarily care about regime change (formally and publicly giving up on it would be one such carrot). Sadly this did not last long. But overall yes, assuming the strikes were successful, there's a good argument to be made that this is the "best" (maybe not "good" but "best") chance for a longer solution since at least the JCPOA?

In terms of potential (middle to long term) blowback, I see two main routes. One, some kind of cynical move by China where they lend Iran tons of stuff as a major proxy, in a way that for Russia/Ukraine they didn't fully commit to. I don't actually list major reprisals on US troops by e.g. Iraq militias because I don't think that makes a massive difference in the long term. Two, and this is the true scary one you refer to, if the Iranian navy actually does try and fully close the straight, and gets in a shooting war with the US Navy, this is actually one of the worst-case scenarios (the true worst-case scenario is the Iran detonates a dirty bomb in Israel, but I doubt they'd be able to pull it off and it would make them an actual international pariah). It's possible the US Navy would take some losses, and that might lead to a wider war, because it's a major unknown how the public would react to major combat losses. Americans would probably stomach it, despite how ahistoric it would be, and just double down on long range bombing, but the endgame there would be very unclear and it could still snowball into a more conventional-ish war. It's just, anything short of losing a carrier or major battleship (think 100+ crew) I think wouldn't be enough to overcome the war skepticism.

Under scenario 2, the actual most probably end result would be a bombing campaign, and we get a rehash of history when an American pilot or two gets shot down and captured alive, resulting in yet another hostage situation. From there it's anyone's guess what would happen, but history does offer some clues.

(~260 feet vs max disclosed bunker depth of 200, though that figure might be misdirection)

Chatter on twitter is that they targeted some existing ventilation shafts (Yes, straight up Star Wars/Top Gun style) to increase the effective depth on the bombs.

Some more speculative chatter is noticing that we allegedly dropped 6 bombs on Fordow... but there are only three (3) visible entry holes. So it is also possible that they dropped a second set of bombs through the first set's entry holes specifically to ensure the kill.

Chatter on twitter is that they targeted some existing ventilation shafts (Yes, straight up Star Wars/Top Gun style) to increase the effective depth on the bombs.

They did that sort of thing in the Gulf War, they're probably much better at it now.

Doesn't look like there was general subsistence of the land in the BBC imagery, so they probably didn't literally collapse the place. I wonder if Israel or the US has drones capable of being sent in remotely and going down the holes for damage assessment.

VP Vance mentioned something about "hitting a target the size of a washing machine." They either pulled off something incredibly slick that no one but the US could do... or they tried and can't tell for sure if it worked or not.

I'm wondering if this sort of approach only 'recently' became possible by the advent of, say, AI-enhanced guidance systems that can recognize a target via visual cues alone so doesn't need a human in the loop to, say, lase the target or steer it in.

This is a huge W for Israel. And frankly a necessary W for the country. If my generation continues to hold the politics that they hold now as they age, Israel is stuffed in about 20 years. They need to win these wars now, and make peace with the people that they are able to now, or they won't survive when the blue-hairs start being elected to the senate.

I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine. I get being against what is happening in Gaza, but so many people seem to be completely ignorant of the history of conflict, perhaps willfully so. I used to enjoy going on /r/stupidpol, but that place has become as cesspit of pro-Hamas propaganda. Even if you think the state of Israeli was a Western colonialist project (debatable at best), the fact is there are 9 million Jews living there now. If Hamas/other Arab nations get their way, those 9 million Jews will either be all dead or displaced. How is that any better than what they think is happening in Gaza and the West Bank? Part of me hopes that most of my generation isn't really thinking about things that way, but based on reactions in my graduate department to 10/7 (immediate pro-Palestine protests despite the fact that ISRAEL was attacked), make me think that a lot of my generation actually just wants Israel gone. Which makes me pretty sad.

I lived in Israel in 2019, and as far as I could see, it was a country that would be worth preserving. The public infrastructure was functional, vast amounts of food are grown on relatively small amounts of land, and best of all the people there actually seemed to believe in something greater than themselves. I spent a bit of time in the north where most of the 1 million Arab citizens live (and also more time in Jerusalem where non-citizen Arabs are), and while they had complaints about their economic situation/racism from Ashkenazi Jews, it seemed like their lives were far far better than their relatives in the West Bank or even in other Arab countries. Heck in Jerusalem there were Israeli soldiers guarding the entrance to the upper temple complex to make sure I didn't go up there as a non-muslim. Would a Palestinian government grant the same kind of protection to a disenfranchised Jewish minority? For some reason, I doubt it.

I'm definitely much more liberal than a lot of people here, but this is one thing I just cannot stomach from my own tribe. It would be one thing if we just disagreed in the abstract, but most organizations on the left seemed to be obsessed with tying support for Palestine for everything. My grad union for example wants to send union dues to Palestine and to bargain to try and get Hopkins to divest from Israeli companies. I didn't fucking sign up for this shit when I signed my union card.

they won't survive when the blue-hairs start being elected to the senate.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. The senate has a conservative bias - I don't see them electing many blue-haired types in the foreseeable future. I agree that this is probably the friendliest administration Israel is going to have for a while but there's probably a lower limit on how strained the relationship is going to get. Unlike almost everyone else in the region, Israel is an actually useful country that's 90% geopolitically aligned with the US in its goals. What's the alternative to being allied with them?

I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine.

I assume it's the media environment. Most legacy media is run by progressives, who will side with Muslims against Jews in any conflict, while newer media is either permeated with anti-western propaganda like TikTok or has no guardrails against plain old standard anti-semitic crankery like Twitter.

I lived in Israel in 2019, and as far as I could see, it was a country that would be worth preserving.

I genuinely hope to see you write more about this at some point.

I'm definitely much more liberal than a lot of people here, but this is one thing I just cannot stomach from my own tribe.

Agreed. I'm also more liberal than not (pro-choice, mostly pro-trans, etc) but it seems clear that liberalism as a movement has, IMO, ceded leadership almost entirely to people who don't believe in universalist principles or rights but rather have a strictly hierarchical view of the world (the infamous "progressive stack") where Jews/whites inhabit the bottom rung and black people/muslims are at the top.

I think a lot of the bias in the pro-Muslim direction is a lack of lived experience with this stuff. If you’re a zoomer, you were a baby when 9-11 happened, and you didn’t actually see what the intifada did, or any of the ISIS beheadings or suicide bombings and IEDs in Iraq/Afghanistan. So the impression you’d get from the media is something Like “Muslims were sitting in Palestine, minding their own business when those colonialist Jews showed up and for no reason at all decided to require all kinds of security measures and put up walls.” No, every one of the security checkpoints was because of various jihad and intifada attacks against civilians.

I don’t think Israel is perfect here. The settler movement is making everything worse. Bombing hospitals is not a good thing to do. The list honestly goes beyond this as well.

I think a lot of the bias in the pro-Muslim direction is a lack of lived experience with this stuff.

That probably applies to zoomers, but I don't think it explains why the progressive movement (which is dominated by millenials) axiomatically favours Muslims over Jews. I'm pretty sure AOC remembers 9/11.

If you're an (American - also applies to some degree to other Western countries) progressive Millennial, assuredly one of your chief political formational points was the Iraq War, where, in addition to various other forms of propaganda, you'd be suggested to a huge assay of talking heads, "warbloggers" and the like piously intoning that this is all a part of a battle against Radical Islamic Terrorist and unless you want to support exactly the wars the Bush admin wanted you to support or a course even more radical, it meant that you loved and cherished not only cruel dictators like Saddam but also Radical Islamic Terrorism (and even neglecting to use this specific phrase might mean you're symphatizing with Islamists!) and all of this proved that you were a part of an eternal alliance of Islamists and Leftists and also that you were naive and America-hating and what have you. I'm not talking about the official Bush admin point of view, which tried to avoid direct implication of this being a war against Islam after a few false starts, but the general connected propaganda machine around the WoT.

Then it all went belly-up and Middle East turned into a fire pit and the people who made it happen never admitted anything. I suspect that offered quite an inoculation against similar rhetoric for many Millennials, lasting until now and giving flashbacks right now of similar rhetoric being used by people who were supposed to be a reaction precisely to Bush-era warmongering.

The conflict between various Muslim states and Israel (which, really, is what we're talking about when talking about "Muslims and Jews" here, since there's only one Jewish state) is rather more complex and goes back way more than the 00s War on Terror, but one of the reasons why they get jumbled up is precisely because Israelis themselves worked to jumble them up in the public view when they considered it advantageous to do so.

The conflict between various Muslim states and Israel (which, really, is what we're talking about when talking about "Muslims and Jews" here, since there's only one Jewish state)

Because Muslims treat the Jews within Muslim states so well, right?

I'm not sure if I see the relevance here, considering that there are, for well-known reasons, not a lot of Jews inside the Muslim states at the moment. At this moment, when we're talking about the conflict between Muslims and Jews referred to in the posts above, it mostly refers to Israel-Palestine and secondarily between various other countries that generally operate by supporting Palestinian factions and, in case of Iran (and previously Iraq), sometimes shooting missiles.

I get being against what is happening in Gaza, but so many people seem to be completely ignorant of the history of conflict, perhaps willfully so.

What is an example of a piece of history of the conflict that you think would change people's minds if they were aware of it?

I seem to be coming from a broadly similar background as you (I was a grad student around when you say you lived in Israel, and visited the country around the same time, and am an "alt-left" outlier on this forum), and I see much of the same facts on the ground as you do (Israel is quite livable, Arab-run countries are shitholes, etc.) (though your benchmarking against the West Bank, which is kind of an Israeli-run open air concentration camp, is a bit disingenuous), and yet I'm increasingly falling in the delenda est camp just because the Israelis have proven time and time again that they are unwilling to compromise on their monomanic obsession to capture and subjugate. For me, this does not even come from a particular reflex to support "the oppressed", as I for example am leaning towards kicking all the Islamic refugees out of Europe to the extent achievable under the law. It's just that I do believe in some baseline of human rights including some degree of freedom, bodily safety and self-determination, and the very existence of Israel from the point of its founding seems to just amount to a wanton cruel ploy to deny these to the previous residents of the clay they took.

I think the Palestinians should be allowed to govern themselves in a miserable theocratic shithole, if they are so inclined; if the Israelis want to build a purposeful country with nice infrastructure and great food production, more power to them, but they should have done so on land they obtained fair and square. I'm sure I could run a very spiffy software development startup in tidy quarters where I also cook two delicious meals a day, but would it be acceptable for me to do that by commandeering a random crack addict's shack and keeping the previous owner locked up naked in the basement, subject to regular beatings (frequency and intensity increased if he lashes out against me) if I also sometimes share some of my food with him (surely better than the slop his buddy who got to keep his shack next door eats)?

What is an example of a piece of history of the conflict that you think would change people's minds if they were aware of it?

This is what gets me. At a certain point once the conflict spans generations and over 100+ years, "who started it" is the most useless question/discussion topic.

Every time someone tries to dunk with "well X did Y so the current Z situation is their fault" it is just so laughable.

I for example am leaning towards kicking all the Islamic refugees out of Europe to the extent achievable under the law

That’s only common sense. But what if they refuse to leave, try to stab your women and children every chance they get, and teach their children to stab? At some point, you’ve done enough to preserve their lives, and the subsequent human rights infractions/butchery is not your fault. It’s like mowing down some japanese with sticks who refuse to surrender. That’s not murder.

yet I'm increasingly falling in the delenda est camp just because the Israelis have proven time and time again that they are unwilling to compromise on their monomanic obsession to capture and subjugate

The Israelis withdrew from the Sinai; they withdrew from Gaza as well.

But never their settlements in the West Bank, which do a lot of the heavy lifting in pissing people off.

So their "monomaniac" obsession applies to only one particular spot. It's not settlements in the West Bank which pisses off the Gazans.

idk I'm not the guy above, I just wanted to offer the thought that they don't only retreat

Well the Israeli government tried to do something about it in the 1970s/1980s. But turns out it's mighty unpopular at the ballot box to bulldoze the homes of your own people after you just won a war.

And yet they did so in Gaza, and all they got for it was Hamas on their borders, shooting rockets.

Yeah the Israeli government is acting to its incentives, I get that. Every action has tradeoffs and consequences. This is the action-set that the Israeli people (and by extension their government) have chosen. I don't envy their choice, it's a nightmare.

But the consequences of their choices is permanent conflict around them, and a world (which to an extent they depend on) that is steadily losing sympathy for their plight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This conflict is so fucking long and there's so much bad blood, I don't ever see it ending unless someone rips the band-aid off and ends it with a final... solution? But that won't happen so instead it'll just limp along. At this point the Israeli's and the Palestinian's deserve each other.

But the consequences of their choices is permanent conflict around them, and a world (which to an extent they depend on) that is steadily losing sympathy for their plight.

It seems Iran has lost international sympathy even faster; Putin shrugged and said there's a lot of Russian-speaking Israelis, and China isn't lifting a finger for them either. (To be fair, China said the UN Security Council should act against the US. Which is a joke seeing as the US has a veto). The consequences of their choices may be permanent conflict, but it does not appear -- aside from ceasing to exist -- that they have options which do not involve that.

Yeah the Iranians are a disaster shit show.

Much like the Russians pre-2022, I thought they were much more sophisticated than they actually were. Then things started exploding and they turned out to be yet another paper tiger.

Praying we get the same twist with China, very worried we will not

I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine.

I doubt there's a single explanation, but one crystalized point made recently on x was that leftism and islamic radicalism are both ideologies on the (relative) decline. BLM was the high water mark of left and can't win much any more. ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are all basically defunct.

I used to enjoy going on /r/stupidpol

Eternal September comes for everyone eventually.

I really liked that sub, I owe it a solid debt of gratitude for shaping my thinking in some ways. I learned a lot, and also laughed a lot. It was basically antibodies for my intense dislike of the woke mob.

But man, they just cannot stop taking the stupidest most contrarian positions on things purely because the out group likes the other thing. Makes the discussion so lame and predictable.

The current state of R/Stupidpol is against the spirit of everything that the late Comrade General Secretary Dolezal stood for, and all currents of her revolutionary thought as transcribed in the Little Beige Book. I can only conclude the subreddit was covertly overrun and subverted by wreckers, Kulaks, and Gucci-ist counterrevolutionaries.

We still have /r/shitpoliticssays to carry the anti-progressive flag.

I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine.

This is not a huge mystery. If you're a left-leaning zoomer, you've spent most of your adult life watching right-wing Israeli governments take advantage of the US government to commit human rights violations while aggressively snubbing the Democrats and boosting the Republicans. You can invoke the history of the conflict or the gruesome spectre of a Hamas victory all you like, but you're contrasting ancient history* and lurid hypotheticals to current reality. If Israel had pursued a measured response to the Oct. 7th attacks (and especially if they weren't also constantly nibbling away at Palestinian territory), they would have been able to garner a lot of sympathy. Not from everyone - there are indeed people who think Israel can do no right - but from most. After all, it seemed like a vindication of the aforementioned lurid hypotheticals. Israel, however, does not do measured responses. And if the IDF's conduct isn't quite the war of annihilation their most vocal critics claim, it's still increasingly hard to argue that Israel isn't waging a war against the Palestinian people rather than simply going after Islamic terrorists.

Even if you're not left-leaning or otherwise sympathetic to the Palestinians, it's easy to feel like this is an incredibly one-sided relationship.

*which is not always especially favorable to the Israelis in any event.

I think it's simpler than that even. It just clearly fits the left's fixation on victims. Israel has power, Gaza does not. In the west jews hold disproportionate positions of power, muslims do not. They've been brought up on that oppressor / oppressed narrative and see every part of the world through it.

On the right it's like a reverse of that, they're anti-idpol as it's been used as a cover to be openly racist against white males for decades now. Jews also play the same identity politic games that blacks, muslims, etc. do. This is why they don't hate Israel as strongly (and dont' support palestine at all), they dislike them generally and in some cases if they've been radicalized (groypers) they hate them, but mostly they want them and their influence out of the country along with all the other minority groups manipulating the system for spoils.

I think it's simpler than that even. It just clearly fits the left's fixation on victims.

This is just a less nuanced (and less charitable) articulation of what I said. The Israeli defense of their conduct is, essentially "if the situation was reversed, they'd behave even worse." This is almost certainly true, but also immaterial because the situation isn't reversed and is extraordinarily unlikely to be (and if it is, it will be because Israel systematically alienated every potentially sympathetic party). Which is to say, Israel postures like it is responding to an existential threat, but it isn't. In the here-and-now, the Israeli boot is up the Palestinians' ass and it's pretty clear that a significant share of Israelis are down for ethnic cleansing.

The mere fact that there's a power asymmetry is not sufficient - historically, Palestinians have struggled to win western support, and this was in large part because they've historically made poor victims while Israel could tout being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. However, the recent war has completely eclipsed prior phases of the conflict in terms of both overall casualties and the general lopsidedness of outcomes, badly eroding any sense of moral high ground. The personage of Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't helped in this regard either.

The basic reality is that Israel is fighting an uphill battle on the PR front, given the raw optics of the current conflict, and zoomers don't have the entrenched preferences of older generations.

On the right it's like a reverse of that, they're anti-idpol

The right is not anti-idpol, so I don't think anti-idpol explains right-wing views on Israel. White identitarians tend to have conflicted views because they tend to be both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic/anti-Arab. Old school conservatives tend to be uncritically pro-Israel both for some of the same reasons old school liberals do, as well as weirder reasons like millenarianism .

Which is to say, Israel postures like it is responding to an existential threat, but it isn't.

Hamas alone does not present an existential threat to Israel, agreed. But for most of Israel's history, they weren't just facing a threat from Palestinians, but from the entire Arab world; and even today, as little as two years ago they were facing a combined threat from Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar and Iran. I think it's fair to say these four belligerents combined constitute an existential threat to Israel.

I think it's fair to say these four belligerents combined constitute an existential threat to Israel.

I think this is true, but only because Iran is on that list. Hamas and Hezbollah are occasionally deadly nuisances, but even that is substantially attributable to Iranian support. The actual existential threat to Israel is a nuclear-armed Iran, and that is not a problem remedied by bombing Gazan apartment buildings.

Yeah, that's fair.

There is no law of war which says you can't make war unless you're faced with an existential threat. Israel is not obliged to merely ignore rocket attacks (which in fact they were doing), let alone raids, simply because those attacks do not present an existential threat.

Proportionality is a principle in the conduct of war, as are injunctions against reprisals and collective punishment.

Israel is not obliged to merely ignore rocket attacks (which in fact they were doing), let alone raids, simply because those attacks do not present an existential threat.

I didn't suggest that they were. I am suggesting that Israel is pursuing what amount to reprisals against Palestinian civilians.

If Hamas was an existential threat to Israel, matters might be different, but Hamas isn't an existential threat and is exceedingly unlikely to become one. (It still wouldn't justify reprisals, but it would at least change the calculations on proportional use of force).

More comments

Palestinians have struggled to win western support, and this was in large part because they've historically made poor victims

In the modern era the palestinians don't need to find ways to be good victims, when plenty of leftists are eager to totemize them and make excuses on their behalf. Egypt blocks the border with Rafah and its leftists who say 'its to keep the Palestinian dream alive'. Hamas shoots its own people and 'its to fight Israeli-armed looters'. And thats all without the pure conspiracism that the left favors like 'the Israelis actually killed their own people'. The worthiness of the Palestinians as victims stems purely from their ineptitude as successful insurgents - failure is met with even greater support. Its the same reason leftists now cheer for Iran, because the failure of Iran to strike against the hated Jew oops Zionist is further proof of the iniquity of the vile Zio. Hamas and the Mullahs are happy to keep the torture of their own people like uncovered women displayed only to internal stakeholders, and the left is busy whitewashing that to keep Hamas and Iran morally pure angels.

What of course is eternally funny to me is that literally every islamist regime in that hellpit immediately turned on their commie socialist allies the very second the state apparatus lost its grip, and every single walking stereotype of Road To Wigan Pier will be immediately up against the wall faster than they can settle on the name for their fully automated luxury space communism utopia. To be fair, that name generation alone could probably take several centuries before agreement is made.

The basic reality is that Israel is fighting an uphill battle on the PR front, given the raw optics of the current conflict, and zoomers don't have the entrenched preferences of older generations.

So perhaps it is then worthwhile for Israel to press the attack now, while they still have foreign support to enable such a thing- also because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon the places launching conventional weapons into Israel right now will be functionally invincible, and Israel doesn't stand a chance against Iran without Roman American support simply due to having 1/10th the population of Iran, having a small fraction of the manufacturing capacity, and being dependent on certain fragile Jew magic for continued survival (desalinization facilities are vulnerable to attack from the sea for obvious reasons).

Israel could tout being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East

And they still had Muh Holocaust in living memory. It's not in living memory any more.

I don't know that this works. LGBT folks in Egypt or Indonesia are powerless victims, their majority-muslim societies are their oppressors. You don't see the left fixated on them.

My extremely gay leftie friends whined about Fordow being hit and how Trump is uniquely evil for killing so many, then when I pointed out the Nigerian and Sudanese murders of Christians or their total silence when the Sri Lankan bombings or Maute Group took over an entire city to systematically slaughter Christians, they pivoted to ad hominem attacks on me for only caring about Muslim crimes. By observed outcome the left doesn't actually care about victims, they only care about castigating their preferred oppressor and piggybacking off real tragedies where possible. Conflating the LGBT cause with Palestine makes the LGBT relevant again, whereas without Palestine or Iran the LGBT has to confront how the T is the only cause actually left to fight for.

It's never the oppressed's fault if they also oppress. Same with blacks committing crime at high rates and what not in the west. It's the west and Israel's fault.

It is important when discussing Israel vs Palestine with someone to figure out if they're an underdog fetishist.

https://www.themotte.org/post/737/israelgaza-megathread-3/155650?context=8#context

Actually, not just Israel/Palestine. It matters for a lot of issues around crime and geopolitics.

What a funny though, this is so true.

They've been brought up on that oppressor / oppressed narrative and see every part of the world through it

This feels kind of reductive when this is one of the most clear cut dynamics of oppressor / oppressed in the world right now.

At this point almost two years in, how many times has the population of Gaza needed to walk to the north/South of the area so that Isreal can flatten another part of the half they just left?

They have 0 control over the amount of calories their population receives.

Definition of the word "oppressed" is "subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment." It's hard to think of examples of a more oppressed group right now, aside from gamers of course.

I don't think anyone really disputes that the Palestinians, collectively, are oppressed. Where we differ is who we blame for oppressing them (the modal leftist pins the blame solely on Israel, whereas I would say that the Hamas leaders, the broader Arab world and Iran bear some of the blame); what the fact of their oppression implies for the moral rightness of their behaviour (the modal leftist believes that, because Palestinians are oppressed, they cannot be held accountable for their actions in the same way an oppressor could; I disagree); and what the fact of their oppression implies for the pragmatic pursuit of their goals (the modal leftist believes that, because Hamas was morally justified in committing the attacks on October 7th or firing rockets at Israel more or less indiscriminately, that therefore implies that doing so was a sensible goal; I disagree, as I am unable to fathom a hypothetical turn of events by which gunning down revellers at a music festival brings Palestinian statehood an iota closer).

Oh I see, in that case yeah

This conflict is so funny in that it seems to turn people's brains off way harder than other ones (on both sides).

It's so nakedly partisan if someone isn't blaming every side for the 100+ years of tit for tat revenge.

I used to think there was a solution and I don't anymore. The Isreali's and the Palestinian's deserve each other.

I do assign Isreal a larger share of the responsibility to end it these days though, given they have so much more power. There's also something so amazing about saving them from the Holocaust only for them to immediately go start kicking someone smaller than them, you'd think of all the people they'd be marginally more sympathetic lol.

I've never found comparisons between how the Nazis treated the Jews and how the Israelis treat(ed) the Palestinians to be even remotely persuasive. The Holocaust was cold-hearted systemic murder on an industrial scale, whereas the Israel-Palestine conflict looks exactly like every other interminable conflict in the Middle East or North Africa for the last ~100 years. Even the much-ballyhooed apartheid legislation in Israel, in which Palestinians are subject to different legislation to Israelis, is also true of e.g. Syria.

The Holocaust was obviously worse. It just contrasts extremely poorly when part of the founding mythos of the country is "we need a save haven for our people, who have suffered greatly" and then you look and Gazans are dying of malnutrition and preventable diseases purely because the Isreali's won't let food in.

History doesn't repeat, but it's definitely rhyming.

Random not very related thought, but the exact same logic applies more broadly to the hardcore lefty's, who are also the more irrational pro-palestinians. They all claim they hate the structures of power that perpetuate racism or sexism , but they don't actually dislike the structure, they just want their people at the top of it. Makes it hard to take them seriously.

More comments

Yeah, zoomers are brainrotted with tiktok slop and think the genocidal jihadis are oppressed. It's not a mystery, it's just a grim reminder we should have banned tiktok ages ago.

You’ve consistently dropped in with short, maximally-inflammatory comments casually dismissing anyone with whom you disagree. This is neither constructive nor suitable for a discussion forum.

One day ban. Please use the time to familiarize yourself with our rules.

the genocidal jihadis are oppressed

I think it's very possible for them to be both genocidal and oppressed. I also think being genocidal has made them oppressed, and being oppressed guarantees they stay genocidal.

To pre-empt "you're a bleeding heart lefty", if I were dictator of my country, I would absolutely ensure a Palestinian refugee diaspora did not form in my country. This does not go well for the hosts typically.

However, half the Gaza strip is under the age of ~20. They've grown up living lives of poverty in a ""country"" that you can walk end to end in about 8 hours, and it's not easy to leave. I'm sure they grow up hearing stories of friends/family/neighbors who've lost loved ones, been injured, or lost their homes to isreali strikes.

If you or I were born there, we'd hate Jews too. I have a very hard time holding teenagers accountable for the beliefs they were born into.

If I were designing an environment to incubate terrorists I don't think I could do much better than the Gaza strip, it's basically a terrorist factory.

I'm pretty black pilled on the whole situation. I think both sides are too deep and too stubborn to ever resolve it. I think they deserve each other.

However, half the Gaza strip is under the age of ~20.

One can't help but wonder at the natalist implications of this.

I mean, compare to South Korea. Both of these cultures grow up under the specter of the overwhelming firepower of an undying nuclear-armed foe, yet one of them is dissipating into despair and the other is bursting with life. And the less-overwhelmed one is the one that's despairing!

Gaza also bans abortion and IIRC limits birth control pretty heavily, in addition to promulgating pro-natal memes, even if they are "eventually outnumber the [redacted]."

I'm sure they grow up hearing stories of friends/family/neighbors who've lost loved ones, been injured, or lost their homes to isreali strikes. If you or I were born there, we'd hate Jews too. I have a very hard time holding teenagers accountable for the beliefs they were born into.

Proportionally more Germans and Japanese folks lost loved ones to Allied bombing and yet 20 years later both of them were singing god bless America.

Perhaps a Japanese teenager during Hiroshima would be justified in hating America. Perhaps he saw his siblings die a slow death of radiation poisoning. I wouldn't judge his hate as unnatural or misplaced, only as counterproductive to his (individual and national) well being.

Understanding that one's reaction to events is not intrinsically true and that one's immediate inclination may not be wise is one of those critical mental milestones.

Proportionally more Germans and Japanese folks lost loved ones to Allied bombing and yet 20 years later both of them were singing god bless America.

The Germans and Japanese weren't displaced, had their lands settled and permanently occupied. Well ok, Germany lost ethnic German land, but they still have a sizeable country. But Germany and Japan were also aggressive expansionist empires, while the Palestinians, from their own perspective, were just minding their own business when a bunch of Jews moved in. That all probably makes a big difference.

They didn't know that in 1944! There were proposals to carve Germany up into 4-5 States. Same with Japan, it wasn't clear upon surrender that the US would eventually allow it to regain its independence.

Moreover, the Arabs were aggressively expansionary for centuries. They didn't end up being an ethnic & religious majority in North Africa just by accident. Saying "from the perspective of a guy that came as part of an expansionist empire but whose specific family lived in the area for generations" doesn't do much work.

I agree. Also helped they were part of an actually productive civilization that had ethics and values which pushed them into prosperity

Also also they got shitloads of money to rebuild, which I think always softens attitudes somewhat.

Didn't Trump offer Gaza shitloads of money?

Offered, not gave. He also offered gold statues of himself and night clubs with Palestinian woman providing sexual services (see that Gaza strip AI video posted by Trump).

Trump, a famously reliable counter party

More comments

I don't think you're a bleeding heart lefty. But I do think this sentimentality is actively worse for the long-term health of the region than my lack of it. So, yes, I'd suggest being less of a bleeding heart. The world is unfair. It sucks the Palestinians grew up in these conditions. It sucks the world broke them.

But they are broken. Israel can coexist in a way they can't.

I'm not sure if I'm sentimental, I just have a hard time feeling mad at them. I also have a preference for less human suffering in the world.

It's like having trashy neighbors who loudly fight and domestic each other. I get why they're both hurt, but I'm not going over there to facilitate couples' counseling. They can spend the rest of their lives making each other miserable if they want. I'd prefer they made up so I didn't have to hear it, but it's not that annoying.

Part of me wonders if everyone would have been better off if the Isreali's had just ripped the band aid off back in the day and just straight pushed them out/completed the ethnic cleansing. The displaced Palestinians would still be salty, but they'd be a few generations into moving on by now, and they'd probably get bombed way less.

Part of me wonders if everyone would have been better off if the Isreali's had just ripped the band aid off back in the day and just straight pushed them out/completed the ethnic cleansing. The displaced Palestinians would still be salty, but they'd be a few generations into moving on by now, and they'd probably get bombed way less.

I mean, obviously, if you don't finish the job, the remnants will continue to be a problem for you. But if the only way to ensure long-term peace for Israel was complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, maybe the whole project should never have been attempted in the first place (especially over such dumb sentimental reasons as "our mythology says this is our homeland" and then hoping that the people already living there would be understanding).

maybe the whole project should never have been attempted in the first place

Episode #1052 of "the British Empire setting up geopolitical nightmares for the world in 100 years"

More comments

Part of me wonders if everyone would have been better off if the Isreali's had just ripped the band aid off back in the day and just straight pushed them out/completed the ethnic cleansing. The displaced Palestinians would still be salty, but they'd be a few generations into moving on by now, and they'd probably get bombed way less.

I will in fact explicitly state my belief that ethnic cleansing ~80 years ago was the most moral option, and would have led to an integrated Palestinian cultural remnant by now that's been broken up and assimilated into all the other regions -- including Israel itself. Instead, the world's accepted that Palestine is never going anywhere, but also accepted that Palestine will never stop trying to refight the conflicts it continually loses.

You break the country and the people decisively, and you relocate the survivors, and a few generations later you have a rough peace. Otherwise, you let every single generation re-radicalize and commit gradual violent suicide against Israel (and whatever Muslim neighbors offend them that day).

You break the country and the people decisively, and you relocate the survivors, and a few generations later you have a rough peace.

I'm not sure what aspect of horseshoe theory is at play here, but I never thought this would be the topic that we both agreed on

More comments

The Israelis TRIED the Ethnic Cleansing, by offering Gaza and the West Bank back to the Egyptians and Jordan in exchange for peace! The genius of the Egyptians and Jordanians is that they REJECTED the inclusion of Gaza and West Bank into their territories and made peace anyways!

Israel could have at the tail end of its MANY wars with the Arabs just marched a division of troops through the capitals to prove decisively that their worldview was broken and that the Israelis were capable of fighting back without US support - the overwhelming bulk of Israeli equipment in 1967 was purchased French/Western European equipment, not US purchased/provided arms. The greater dynamics of cold war tensions is what caused the Arabs to cease hostilities on the recommendation of Soviet advisors, because otherwise the Arabs were continually believing that they were winning.

The Egyptians still celebrate the Yom Kippur War as a national holiday https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/172q5t3/who_really_won_the_yom_kippur_war_egypt_or_israel/ despite the evidence to the contrary and it just proves that without comprehensive defeat you can imagine you actually won even as your armies lay shattered.

Israels major achievement of peace is that the leaders of Arab nations all collectively like the money peace brings in to buy property in London and New York, and the indulgences of ostentatious consumption and degenerate whoremongering in the Gulf Arab states. The incentive for Arab leaders to wage war on Israel is much lower than the desire fermenting in their downtrodden populations, but that problem for once isn't Israels responsibility to manage or to have incited - the alliance with the Mullahs is all the fault of the Arabs themselves.

Again, Israel should just migrant fleet across the world for 4 years after sealing Jerusalem in a giant gelatinous cube. The region will fall apart entirely by itself without western intervention to keep peace, and the world will be better for it.

More comments

it's just a grim reminder we should have banned tiktok ages ago.

As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.

They didn't need Facebook to come to that conclusion yet arrived at it anyway, so the problem rests with the people, not the technology.

As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.

I mean, they were back the last century. At best, they're just slow to update and relying on cached thoughts from when they could last think independently. In that sense, it's less like rot and more like calcification/ossification.

back the last century

If by 'last' you mean 'the 19th', sure, I'll grant that. At no point past 1920ish was this true for women (so no woman born/raised in the West knows what it's like to be uniquely oppressed- that it happened once upon a time is their origin myth, just like it is for the Indians); for minorities, at no point in Boomer living memory (post-childhood, so 13+: someone born in '45 would be post-Brown v. Board at that age) were they really oppressed.

It's something their parents and grandparents had reason to take seriously; what we're seeing now is the echoes and turbulence of a once-truth so widely held industry sprung up around it reaching its sell-by date. (This is also why, if LGB organizations did not embrace and pump up T, they'd have faded away like MADD did: their original grievances don't exist any more, hence the lie that they do must be defended ever harder.)

Goesaert v. Cleary: “Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the woman bartender, it was argued, could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.” 1948. Overturned in 1976.

Schulz v. Wheaton Glass: it turns out making identical job listings but paying the women’s jobs less actually counts as discrimination. 1970.

US v. Virginia et al.: no, spinning up a second school to allow male/female segregation is not, in fact, separate but equal. 1996.

I find it obvious that second-wave feminism was legitimately fighting oppression. The same is doubly true for racial minorities. There are plenty of reasons why the Civil Rights Act was significant, rather than a formality.

US v. Virginia et al.: no, spinning up a second school to allow male/female segregation is not, in fact, separate but equal. 1996.

And yet women-only colleges survive.

More comments

Discrimination in education and employment was de-jure legal through at least the 60s and de-facto for even longer.

But anyway, this is a continuum, there was no single date in the 20th century when those grievances went away. It suffices to highlight that we agree that in 1960 it was generally so and that by 2010 it largely wasn't without having to bicker about the precise point. The echoes of that truth are indeed relevant, and the boomers formed much of their thinking that way.

Disagree. Historical evidence is strong that being a housewife in deracinated, suburban 1950s America was pretty damn miserable. Consider that it was their daughters in particular who became second-wave feminists - in open repudiation of their mothers’ lives. Why would they do that if it were something to look forward to?

Disagree. Historical evidence is strong that being a housewife in deracinated, suburban 1950s America was pretty damn miserable.

What's the evidence? Progressives used to like bringing up Valium and the like, but drug consumption among women has, if anything, only gone up since.

Consider that it was their daughters in particular who became second-wave feminists - in open repudiation of their mothers’ lives. Why would they do that if it were something to look forward to?

Because society requires active maintenance and not just mere inertia, and propaganda based around sowing resentment towards specific subgroups is quite effective.

More comments

At no point past 1920ish was this true for women (so no woman born/raised in the West knows what it's like to be uniquely oppressed- that it happened once upon a time is their origin myth, just like it is for the Indians)

While I'm broadly sympathetic to the idea that women are less oppressed than is commonly claimed, I do take issue with your claim here. In the United States, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed in 1974, and was the bill that allowed women to get credit in their own name without the signature of a husband or male relative. I would argue that lack of access to credit in one's own name is a form of oppression, even if it could be counterbalanced by paternalistic or progressive benefits.

It is also worth pointing out that families and social expectations can function as "tiny tyrannies", even if people are theoretically free according to the law. My mom grew up in a fairly patriarchal household, and when my aunt got into the Air Force Academy her dad (my grandpa) said "no, you're staying right here with the family" and my aunt meekly accepted his word as final. On the other hand, my mom got into MIT and when my grandpa told her she couldn't go, she basically said, "I wasn't asking for permission, I'm going to MIT." My mom was also the most stubborn of her sibllings, and I don't think it's a coincidence that she was the one that left the state they all grew up in and became an upper middle class engineer, while the rest stayed nearby like grandpa wanted and mostly didn't do as well (except for the one aunt who got into real estate and banking.)

Women are higher in the Big 5 trait of Agreeableness, and I think that means that even in legal regimes that are relatively favorable to women, they can still get "stuck" in a tiny tyranny through mere social pressure alone. The women who escape are either unusually low in Agreeableness for a woman (like my mom), or autistic/weird enough that they naturally drift away when given the chance (like Aella.)

In the United States, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed in 1974, and was the bill that allowed women to get credit in their own name without the signature of a husband or male relative.

No, this was the bill that made it a Federal legal requirement that women could get credit in their own name without the signature of a husband or male relative. The idea that the opposite was universally the case before 1974 is a recent fabrication.

More comments

As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.

Those people are also morons, yeah. When the boomers have died off, we'll be living in a crazy world.

They didn't need Facebook to come to that conclusion yet arrived at it anyway, so the problem rests with the people, not the technology.

It's both. A better people would perhaps not be susceptible to TikTok propaganda, but we don't have a better people.

Peculiar that despite the damage its been doing to young minds we only decided to ban it after it became a problem for Israel. Peculiar that despite all the anti-American and anti-white hate that flourished on college campuses we only decided to step in when it became anti-Israel.

Surely it makes no sense to blame TikTok for anti-white, anti-male, or anti-American attitudes on campuses? TikTok was first available in 2016, and I believe its popularity only really started to shoot up in 2018. Campus nonsense well predates that.

Yes, the Jews are unduly influential. The Muslims are also violent savages. These are not contradictory claims. The Palestinians have alienated every single one of their neighbors, ruined every chance at peace they ever have, and maintained the world's biggest victim complex while being the world's sorest losers. The average Palestinian is a regressive piece of shit who supports the cruelties of his people -- he's just mad he's losing.

And the Iranians? Olympic champions of terrorism.

They're feral dogs. Israel manipulates, but they're at least capable of peaceful coexistence. One wants to leech off a system, another would tear it to pieces.

The Palestinians have alienated every single one of their neighbors single one of their neighbors, ruined every chance at peace they ever have, and maintained the world's biggest victim complex while being the world's sorest losers. The average Palestinian is a regressive piece of shit who supports the cruelties of his people -- he's just mad he's losing.

Ok, now I’m convinced you’re an intentionally anti-Semitic troll. The belligerent Israeli act was straining credulity already but this is just a 4chan screed about Jews that you’ve Cntrl find+replaced with “Palestinian”. You’re even playing up the Goebbels stereotype about Jewish projection.

Ok at this point I’m convinced you’re an intentionally anti-Semitic troll.

I'm not an anti-Semite.

The belligerent Israeli act was straining credulity already but this is just a 4chan screed about Jews that you’ve Cntrl find+replaced with “Palestinian”.

I'm also not Israeli.

Muslims just suck, man. It's not any kind of conspiracy or act. They're a wretched people, and I've supported exterminating the lot of them since I was a teenager decades ago.

Israel manipulates, but they're at least capable of peaceful coexistence

While I agree that fundamentalist Muslims make probably the worst National neighbors, this is pretty generous to the Isreali's

Their history of perpetually expanding their settlements in the West Bank (at least they left Gaza) shows they're not particularly interested in totally peaceful coexistence.

Sorry, I meant they can coexist with America / the western world. A world better off for not having Palestinians in it, so I appreciate Israel's expansion -- though it should have happened decades ago, no one ever should have let a bitter, vengeful minority dig in roots. The net human suffering would be so much lower if they'd just totally conquered & displaced generations ago. Their greatest moral failure has been half-assing it.

Sorry, I meant they can coexist with America / the western world

Ahhhhh, in that case, yeah

Their greatest moral failure has been half-assing it.

Seriously, it's very similar to the state of native Americans (and Australians). That at least has an end. Assimilation will win eventually I think.

I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine.

Because Israel is white and neo-colonialist. In their view. And that's pretty much the worst thing you can be.

Because Israel is white

Jews, Schrodinger's race

What's fun is you have factions on the left who deeply believe that they're white, and ones who take great offense to that.

There's also factions on the right who very much think they're white, or who think they're very much not.

And all for different reasons too, lots of fun

Well maybe people would make up their mind if the Jews themselves could, but there's so many examples of individuals trying to play both fellow white and oppressed minority at once that it's a meme.

The truth is that Semites are genetically closer to Caucasians than any other race but can still be meaningfully distinguished as a separate genetic cluster if you're willing to engage is sophisticated enough racism.

None of that matters to lefties of course, for whom whiteness is a cultural affair of domination and colonialism and Israel specifically is quite close to a central example of that category.

This is just idle speculation on my part, but I feel like I'd read before, on the subject of Iran, that one of the giant, deep gulfs within the Democratic party at the upper echelons is the issue of the relative power of blacks, and the relative power of Jews. Just as a matter of deeply important sub-coalitions floating around. I think I saw this discussed specifically in the context of Obama, and important parts of his elite posse, so to speak - a bunch of them deeply resented how much power and coddling Jewish power got within the Democratic party (according to them), and they wanted to see the Jewish part of the coalition taken down significantly.

The last 15 years has been an unrelenting window in to how those groups take other groups down a peg - #metoo puts men on the back foot, #blm puts whites on the back foot, non-stop Pride month puts unsupportive religious people on the back foot. It's always about raising the salience of some public issue, forcing attention on it, and framing the split in ways that foregrounds a specific group and disfavors them. I'm not saying this is entirely astroturfed, either - I think it's something like a savvy awareness of how mass politics actually works. Smart, well-connected activists lay the ground work for narratives, plant the seeds, agitate in the right places, and then if they've done their job well and have luck on their side, other people organically pick up the threads and the whole thing snowballs.

I'm not saying, exactly, that this is all there is to the Palestinian issue. But I am saying, at the very least, that it does pattern match to a preexisting split in highly placed circles that is highly useful to certain powerful people. That's my impression, anyway.

While I'm much less white-identitarian than most people on here, it's entirely possible that among the specific set of 'young blue tribers who never leave the ivory tower bubble of academia' the position really does boil down to 'white people have no right to exist'. As it applies to the USA this is basically a luxury belief- the serious antiwhite racists are mostly a subset of AADOS(+a few natives) who are begrudgingly tolerated by their coethnics. In Israel, on the other hand...

I'm not sure why Iran getting a nuclear weapon is such a disaster. Like, bad, yes. Saudi Arabia would nuclearize pretty much immediately and Turkey probably wouldn't be too far behind, and that means Ukraine and Taiwan, maybe Egypt too, would probably take it as permission, and...

But the Iranian leaders aren't actually insane and Iran is uninvadable anyways. Pakistan and North Korea haven't used their nukes; they're expensive dick-measuring contests that deter ground invasion and not something which even nutsy regimes would use in anger.

Turkey is NATO, we are contractually obliged to aid them when they come under attack, which is commonly understood to involve turning Tehran into a parking lot if the ayatollah foolishly attacks them with a nuke.

My problem with Iran is that I do not have a good model of just how nutty they are, really. I would model their close ally Hamas as being willing to sacrifice every soul in Gaza to kill a few 10k or 100k Jews. Presumably they are less crazy than that. It is of course much more convenient if the kids of their allies are bombed in retaliation, and the ayatollah certainly did not have a problem aiding with actions which would predictably result in a lot of Gazans killed.

I mean, if Iran's version of Islam considers any Muslim bombed by unbelievers to be a martyr who will go straight to heaven, then getting their cities nuked is what an utility maximizer would do. Then again, their past behavior indicates that they care a lot about maintaining power, and not so much about sending their population to heaven in the quickest possible way.

I would model their close ally Hamas as being willing to sacrifice every soul in Gaza to kill a few 10k or 100k Jews.

That doesn't scream "crazy" to me, though.

Parthia has convinced Judea, and by extension Rome, to spend many shekels destroying an enemy who were attacking from, given the wider context, strategically insignificant locations. If Judea wants to occupy that land now they'll be spending even more shekels rebuilding it and spending Judean lives clearing out their own UXO, all for the price of the lives of an ethnic group the other Arabs in the region are all OK with being genocided.

This is exactly the same trade the US is making in Ukraine. For some of the same reasons, I might add; tying Russia up in Ukraine leaves room for the US to reconquer more interesting prizes like Syria all at the cost of checks notes the military hardware that was designed to fight that exact war, that was otherwise just going to age into uselessness anyway.

And no, the use of the odd child soldier does not crazy make, especially if by "child soldier" we mean "fighting-age male, but one young enough to make Westerners big sad" (or the occasional 8 year old with a grenade for the newsreels). Even the Taliban weren't that desperate.

Ukraine's stated military objective is to keep independent despite Russia trying to annex them.

Hamas stated military objective is to destroy Israel.

Now, Ukraine's struggle is not an unmitigated success, sure, they lost territory but were still holding Kiev last time I checked.

Hamas struggle is an utter failure in military terms. If they murdered as many Israeli as they did on Oct-7 every day, they would still need two decades to genocide Israel. Nor is Israel going to use up all its bombs on Gaza and then being overrun by Arabs, or go bankrupt bombing Gaza.

I have long argued that Hamas theory of victory involves goading Israel into killing as many Palestinian kids as possible, thereby eroding Western support for them. This is a strategy which is notably worse than millennia of horrible warfare, and which I would label "crazy".

My problem with Iran is that I do not have a good model of just how nutty they are, really. I would model their close ally Hamas as being willing to sacrifice every soul in Gaza to kill a few 10k or 100k Jews. Presumably they are less crazy than that.

What do you think of the use of child soldiers and also child martyrs?

It’s been a bit of a mixed bag in craziness over the years. Ahmadinajad as president was a notorious “kill all the Jews” type but the Khamenei who always has ultimately held the reins has been a bit more pragmatic-ish. I personally think most of the allies they have promoted in the region were more cynical and self serving in purpose than religious. In other words ultimately they seem to genuinely care about keeping their own Islamic revolution going, but I don’t see them as super invasion prone. I mean 15 years anything can change but that’s the vibe.

However, theocracy type governments are particularly hard to consistently model - see for example some of the more extreme sects running out of control in Saudi Arabia and metastasizing to locations and purposes SA didn’t actually want.

It's also a mixed bag what happens during succession. That's always been the concern in Pakistan, not necessarily who is in charge at the moment, but the wildcard that happens when regimes change.

Isn't one of their political platforms death to America?

I think that's a good reason to stop them from having a nuclear bomb.

Note that "marg bar _____", while literally translating as "death to _____", is often used as an idiomatic expression of general hostility; compare how N. W. A. were not expressing carnal desire for the local constabulary.

Isn't one of America's political platforms to go to war with Iran? Seems like a good reason for Iran to get a nuke...

This doesn't refute America's incentives, so what you're saying without realizing it is that we're in existential conflict and should eliminate Iran.

Would Iran nuke America though? Thinking about it for more than 5 seconds, how can one honestly think they would? They act like people who care about continuing to exist (for example, their retaliations against US aggression, e.g. Soleimani's killing, are always highly calculated so as not to start a full-scale war with the US). And they must know that nuking America means they will cease to exist the same minute. So, I need more convincing that they are willing to commit civilizational suicide. Or is the idea that they're biding their time so they can reach the point where they can nuke one US city, and then having achieved that goal, they'll happily get vaporized? Somehow I doubt that.

Like the other person said:

Note that "marg bar _____", while literally translating as "death to _____", is often used as an idiomatic expression of general hostility; compare how N. W. A. were not expressing carnal desire for the local constabulary.

Iran's whole shtick since 1979 has been hyperbolic rhetoric and sabre-rattling. Doesn't mean they would commit country-level suicide.

I'm saying genocidal lunatics should be put in a box and locked away on all sides. Especially those who are somehow incapable of disentangling an 'existential' conflict between nations that exist on the opposite ends of the planet.

Perhaps you're unaware, but force projection exists.

I'm aware, now please get in the box.

Only if it's full of guns and ammo.

Isn't one of America's political platforms to go to war with Iran?

Can you point to the platform of any party or politician that says "Go to war with Iran"?

Does McCain's singing bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann while he was a sitting senator and on his way to being the republican presidential nominee?

It's about as close as you can get, and still, no.

So is McCain not a politician or is bombing not an act of war in your mind?

Not a political platform. A (shitty) joke from one guy.

More comments

It's right next to Iran's political platform of 'death to America'.

No, it isn't. Iran's political platform is explicitly and publicly stated by their political leadership and their supporters. We have some hawks who will not miss a chance for an opportunistic war. You are constructing a false equivalency. Iran and the US are not the same in their terminal goals towards one another.

The Iranians chant death to America and have publicly gone to great length to explain that the slogan is not a direct wish for harm against American citizens, but a screed against their government and its belligerence and hostility towards Iran.

Which fits rather snugly as a contrast with the more Orwellian terminology of the west, like 'regime change'.

You are constructing a false equivalency. Iran and the US are not the same in their terminal goals towards one another.

There are hawks on both sides. People expressing animus towards other peoples via slogans or discussions on TV does not have to exist as a direct analog to what terminal goals governments have towards one another. But as far as I can tell, both parties want a government that is favorable to them, and would prefer not to torpedo their own political projects in a costly confrontation.

To that extent there is no false equivalency that doesn't rely on some drastic otherization and dehumanization. And it's hard to pretend that Iran is hogging all the religious lunatics when Americans have decades of failed Zionist adjacent policies laying in their backyard. Which happens to also be Iran's back yard. Along with theologians like Ted Cruz...

I'm not sure why Iran getting a nuclear weapon is such a disaster.

I suppose it depends on how seriously one takes their maximalist rhetoric against Israel.

The idea that they would nuke Israel is a bit silly. They would immediately get nuked back (unless they can take out all of Israel's warheads in a first strike, which they have no way of guaranteeing). And isn't the whole point that they want the land returned to the Palestinians? Why would they turn it into an uninhabitable wasteland (and kill untold numbers of Palestinians in the process)? Iran, despite what Netanyahu wants you to believe, is a rational actor at the end of the day.

Yes that may be a disaster for Israel. How exactly would that be a disaster for the USA?

Seems like preventing a regional power that hates your guts from getting nuclear weapons is probably worth a dozen bunker busters.

There hate for us is not unwarranted.

How strong is the evidence that this action will prevent them from getting nuclear weapons rather than convince them they absolutely need them and that we are duplicitous and not to be trusted?

Their hate being warranted or not is irrelevant to our incentives. They do hate us. If they're deadset on going nuclear, we must destroy them.

Iran's only hope is to stop being so hateful. Even if they think it's justified.

Even our 'friends' hate us, we just destroy them differently.

Perhaps we should try being less horrible.

There are no friends among states.

More comments

I don't think any president wants to have to make the call of "Hey, this country just nuked a non-Nato country and wiped them off the map. Do we... respond?"

You don't want to set the precedent that there's no response or a limited one, and you also don't want to be the one who gets dragged into a nuclear/heavy-handed military response that has to try to force regime change.

We've already tried regime change in Iran, Operation Ajax / Operation Boot. 'Our guy' was so unpopular he fell to a popular Islamic revolution.

Which non-nuclear power do you anticipate they'd wipe off the map? MAD brought stability.

The US claims to have an interest in non-proliferation and international order. If Iran gets one, Saudi Arabia gets one. Israel already has one.

So now, instead of one independent-minded nuclear power, you have three in a region of the world a huge amount of oil and trade passes through. Lots of chances for drama. (Also, harder for the US to threaten a nuclear nation)

Maybe nothing happens. But it'd just be better to not deal with this.

US claims to have an interest in non-proliferation and international order

Kayfabe.

More effort than this, please.

It’s awfully hard to argue with one-liners.

Maybe the most moralistic version. But even the most detached and amoral babysitter has reason to keep their most deranged wards away from the knives.

We're supplying the knives to some of the children.

As I said in another response, we should let the quarreling foreign tribes fight.

Lots of parents deputize the one kid they think is reliable. The wisdom can be debated but it doesn't really contradict the playground cop thesis. The US also bribes countries like Egypt on the other end which fits as well.

As for letting them squabble... this'd work if a)everyone didn't already agree that the use of nukes is a taboo to be maintained and b) there was no chance of it spreading to the exact sort of groups that got Iran into this mess and c) one of these nations didn't continually insist it was in a religious war with the rest. That gives people reason to deny you a nuke.

You're looking at it from the perspective of someone that just wants to live a peaceful life and look after their and their family's own interests. Iran getting a nuke and the rest of the ME following suit means no more imperial expansion into what is basically the nemesis of the western empire's fucked up and vulnerable back yard.

Even if there isn't enough public support for a ground war today. It keeps the option open down the road and makes color revolutions and that kind of thing more possible. As it's questionable to regime change a nuclear nation since you don't know what the power vacuum and instability will bring.

I'm surprised how much political capital he was willing to spend on this. No clear evidence that their nuclear program is knocked out, a pretty strong incentive now between the outcomes of Libya, North Korea, Israel and Iran for any country that doesn't want to be a colony of either the eastern or western bloc to develop nukes. Meanwhile half his base is in open rebellion against him and his biggest source of support right now are Mark Levin type republicans which all of the younger "joe rogan" base despises.

You could almost draw a straight line between the republican party being overthrown by the populists and the Iraq / Afghan wars. Of all the mental gymnastics the base will commit to polish up his obvious faults I don't think he will get a pass here. He's pretty much lost the republicans Joe Rogan viewership numbers of votes. It does make the claims of Israel having compromising intel on him seem more likely.

Can add to that this kills Tulsi Powell, Rubio, and maybe even Vance's future prospects as well. George W. Trump pictures being spammed all over his x posts.

No clear evidence that their nuclear program is knocked out, a pretty strong incentive now between the outcomes of Libya, North Korea, Israel and Iran for any country that doesn't want to be a colony of either the eastern or western bloc to develop nukes.

This would be true regardless of whether the US conducted this strike or not. One might argue that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without any sort of kinetic response would have encouraged state actors to pursue nukes even more rigorously.

This would be true regardless

Nope. Sticking to the agreed upon nuclear treaties and having IAEA continue to monitor things like they have which led to Iran not developing a nuke the last 20+ years despite neocons and Netanyahu fearmongering it would've made it less likely.

The IAEA declared Iran out of compliance in the runup to the bombings.

I'm a big fan of "stick to the treaties or else the freedom dorrito levels all your facilities" as having the right incentive gradient.

I think it's very unlikely the IAEA action was caused by anything Iran did. Normally they bend over backwards not to find any violations. So I suspect pressure was applied to get them to make this declaration in order to provide justification for the desired bombings.

So if the IAEA says they are in compliance --> they are in compliance.

If the IAEA says they are substantially out of compliance --> they are in compliance and pressure was applied (by whom?) to declare them out of compliance.

What would the IAEA do if they were actually out of compliance?

So if the IAEA says they are in compliance --> they are in compliance.

No. I think the IAEA will generally say they are in compliance regardless of whether they are, and most likely they have not been for quite a while.

doesn’t that make the fact that they we’re about to declare them out of compliance quite significant?

This is predicated on Iran not developing a nuke in the next few years without the most recent conflict. It's impossible to know with only public information, but at least the US and Israel believed Iran was close enough to one to warrant an attack.

I'm surprised how much political capital he was willing to spend on this.

I don't actually think a few airstrikes on Iran are worth that much political capital.

Trump was never a dove, and MAGA was never pacifist or pro-Iranian. At most, hit platform was a bit isolationist, but more in a "us playing world police is a bad deal" than "let us downsize our military to what we would reasonably require to defend our country" way.

Assassinating a few enemies or weddings with drone strikes or dropping a few bombs on countries your constituents could not find on a map is very in character for any president.

I mean, sure, if he announced that he was invading Iran, his base might get deja-vu, but if he spends a smallish fraction of the defense budget on personal pet projects like military parades or bombing Iran, I doubt any of his voters will care much.

He's already testing the waters for regime change

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114729009239087163

Israel's goal was never the nuclear program. Most people realize this is unlikely to end here that's why it's costing him so much. At best it'll be a frozen conflict until new made up intel comes out. Israel is already saying they have an idea where the enriched Uranium was shipped. Other people are pointing out that Iran has other bases under other mountains.

And I mean, the president that ran on getting out of the middle east and America First is now posting to make Iran great again? How can that not cost you.

Regime change isn’t possible without a ground invasion which isn’t possible. Posturing doesn’t change that.

Regime change isn’t possible without a ground invasion

Yes

a ground invasion which isn’t possible

Debatable. Arguably, the US would pay a lower price in lives lost to occupy Iran than they did in, say, Operation Overlord.

Sure, currently the political climate is not very favorable to an invasion. The two failures of GWB are still fresh in the minds of Americans, and Trump did not campaign on military adventurism.

It would likely take a very stupid action on Iran's part to shore up US support for an invasion. Perhaps a 9/11 level terrorist attack, or a couple of 100 captured US servicemen being beheaded on video.

Obama ran on anti-war, tax payer financed medical care and reduced income inequality. Obama did the exact opposite and the left reinvented itself with woke.

We could see republicans doing the same and forgetting about reducing the deficit, America first, American industrial policy and instead finding an equivalent of the trans issue to channel their energy.

The US people will never be allowed to vote on immigration, billions to Israel, warmongering, Medical insurance companies extracting wealth and the surveillance state. It doesn't matter America elects or what the polls show, those issues are settled by the elite for the elite.

Republicans have forgotten about the deficit and American industrial policy.

Medical insurance companies extracting wealth

It's interesting to note that on this specific question, obamacare was an attempt to reach a continental European style universal healthcare system. It just doesn't work. It has the same bones- strictly mandatory employer provided health insurance, welfare-funded healthcare for the poor and old, a subsidized exchange system for everyone else. It just doesn't work as well. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the median Frenchman or German pays for health insurance- and spends less than the US consumer does.

A private system could work as well. Holland, Switzerland and Japan also have private systems. The difference is that their prices aren't abhorrent. Regardless of who pays the US medical system has a cost problem. This problem will not get solved because the vested interests want delivering a baby to cost 40000 dollars.

I find it somewhat amusing that the US has state-run education, and we regularly talk about how the $17k spent annually on the median K-12 student is too low (but is still higher than peer nations). But healthcare is (mostly) privately run, and we spend more than peer countries and in this case it's obvious that we should save by switching to a more centrally-run model. I'm not sure those positions really square with each other.

I'm not sure those positions really square with each other.

They don't really have to. Public and private solutions can fail for different reasons (though worth noting that both education and healthcare in the US are, like most developed countries, hybrid systems).

The US people will never be allowed to vote on immigration

What do you think he got elected for this time, looking sexy in swimming trunks? I think stopping illegal immigration, deporting illegals and so on was the number one issue with his voters, and so far he is making a good show of this actually being a priority for him.

--

Other than that, I can only advise you to give that system called "proportional representation" a try. It will allow multiple parties to compete. Sometimes, you will have an issue where (n-1) parties are leaning towards one side, but one party canvases with being on the other side and wins big in one election. Often, this will cause the other parties to flip.

Sadly, this often happens with opinions which I do not share. For example, a single state victory of the green party after Fukoshima was enough to kill nuclear power. More recently, the anti-immigrant AfD has won big in the federal elections. While they are not yet in power, Merz has taken to personally drown a migrant child in the Mediterranean sea each morning before breakfast the CDU/CSU/SPD coalition is basically trying to enact the AfD program, as far as migrants are concerned.

He's taco'd pretty hard on immigration. He paused deportations for hotel and farm workers, then revoked that, and is now talking about some kind of weird visa but not calling it visa system for them. We still aren't even deporting at a fast enough pace to undo the damage Biden did, let alone get rid of the 10s of millions of illegals already here.

the CDU/CSU/SPD coalition is basically trying to enact the AfD program, as far as migrants are concerned.

Mass deportations are on the table? This is news to me. Anything in particular you’d recommend I follow to learn more?

“Remigration” certainly isn’t official AfD policy, its advocated by the far-right Höcke wing of the party, not the Weidel center.

I wonder whether perhaps it should be. Shatter the Overton window and be done with it, tell people exactly what you mean. Or maybe it can't be, for legal reason. I am not a lawyer.

instead finding an equivalent of the trans issue to channel their energy.

The trans issue, but on the other side.

The difference is 'my opponents literally, not a misuse of figuratively but actually do want to let men and boys in your daughter's locker room and discipline her for being upset about it' is a winning issue for Republicans.

"Kamala Harris is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you."

I agree tbh. The thing is the imperial core is nearly completely hollowed out by this and the gains on the frontier are no longer outpacing the decay at home. So eventually their system will simply collapse and they'll face the same fate as elites in all the other dying empires.

The Joe Rogan base will either forget about this in a month or write it off as 'Trump is no Bush, he drops bombs and leaves, no ground war'. The strike is probably insanely popular among everyone else- nuclear nonproliferation and boo Iran are both pretty popular, and there's no boots on the ground here.

I’m lodging my prediction that there will be American boots on the ground within five months.

I am deeply and profoundly confident that while America might airstrike them many more times, US infantry/Marines (special forces who knows) will not touch Iranian soil in 2025.

That would be an unbelievable strategic blunder. The amount of weapons China and Russia would pour in... It would be so foolish.

We'll find out in 5 months!

If the American empire isn't inevitably heading for its end already... Getting stuck in Iran would really do the trick. Putin would be cackling to himself.

Sure, but I don't think they're getting stuck in Iran. That said, I also think nuclear weapons are overrated, and while it's likely worthwhile to launch delaying tactics... once Iran has the bomb, what exactly are they going to do with it? Iran already knows that Israel has sufficient nuclear capacity to glass Iran, and Iran already has (or by all rights, should have) sufficient conventional weapons manufacturing capacity (possibly aided by the Chinese) to turn Israel into a parking lot. I think they'll sell them to African nations for shits and giggles and maybe explode some other neighboring nation's capital city CoD 4-style (Baghdad?), but that's about it unless they can convince Egypt to take the hit. Iran can't hit the US and if they try, they'll be quickly reminded that the Tomahawk was primarily designed with a thermonuclear payload in mind.

Which is probably why Israel is right to declare open season on Iranian allies right next to them. The thing about nuclear weapons is mainly that they allow small nations to go toe to toe with nations many times their size (they are, quite literally, the nation-state equivalent of personal firearms)- not relevant for the Iranians, very relevant for the Israelis (and the North Koreans, and the South Africans back before they entered their current cold civil war, and the Libyans, and the Ukrainians), and very very relevant for the Palestinians.

Ukraine, sure- both because Russia sucks, but also because the entire country is one big open field. That's why the Russians want it; a war fought against NATO in Ukraine is one that isn't being fought in Russia, a war fought against NATO in Prussia isn't one being fought in Ukraine, a war fought against NATO in East Germany is one that isn't being fought in Prussia.

Iran, on the other hand, is actually in a solid strategic position; Rome encircled it, warred against it, even outlasted it, but never conquered it. Seafaring peoples don't have that level of power projection- they discover this when they inevitably try to conquer Afghanistan- and the desert west of Iran is trivially conquerable by Iran simply because it's a desert. Ain't exactly much to defend, or many people to defend it with, out there. Judea is in the strongest tactical position and yet for most of its history it's been governed by one or other empire that, ultimately, revolves around Iran.

That said, I also think nuclear weapons are overrated, and while it's likely worthwhile to launch delaying tactics... once Iran has the bomb, what exactly are they going to do with it? Iran already knows that Israel has sufficient nuclear capacity to glass Iran

Israel does NOT have sufficient nuclear capacity to glass Iran. Israel is small and Iran is big, and that counts for a lot in the nuclear game. Certainly Israel could make Iran suffer with their dying breath, but they would still exist afterwards.

It's such a stupid idea, there's no way they will

I said the exact same thing loudly and confidently about Russia going into Ukraine though, so...

Do you mean special forces or regular ground troops?

Because it takes ages and ages for the latter to even arrive. Back in 1990-1991 it took about 6 months for the US and Coalition ground forces to get ready to go and in many respects America had a much freer hand back then, along with more naval transport capacity. Airmobile assets won't cut it for a ground campaign in such a large country, you'd need the bulk of the US army.

Whereas I could believe that there are already special forces on the ground, just like in Ukraine.

I'd be cautious there that a middle option is technically possible: Obama ordered airstrikes on Syria against ISIL, and there have been American boots on the ground there since (unclear on exact deployment dates and current status), but they've remained in a limited capacity as such without being a full-blown invasion a la 2003. It's possible the exact wording of your prediction may matter quite a bit.

Feel free to make money on polymarket.

That’s too anonymous; I’m opening myself to embarrassment if I’m wrong.

I'm not sure who is in a bubble as I can't find a single place where this is popular outside of say /r/neoliberal or the neocon talking heads on twitter. Even /r/conservative it seems to go 50/50 from thread to thread. Israel is intensely disliked by the younger generations, there is a reason the US suddenly decided to ban tiktok after Israel started the Gaza genocide. If you're basing it off of opinions here I think this place has gotten pretty out of touch on it's political views.

I'm surprised how much political capital he was willing to spend on this.

I'd like to hear the case that this was actually significant political capital. Democrats were already flipping out (Fetterman excluded) over Trump's failure to stop Israel from bombing Iran and continuing to conduct effective operations in Gaza. So they are already on team Hamas/Iran and not on team Israel/MidEast stability. This strike was just a logical move along the route of letting Israel win all the wars we'd otherwise have to fight if they got wiped out, and from time to time we lend some aid.

I think you are dramatically overestimating the cost of this strike.

I saw the news of the strike and thought of you (<3)

Fair point from our discussion the other day.

I'm surprised to be saying this but Trump threaded the needle well. A bunch of MOPs and ~40 Tomahawks/whatever?

Small strike, big effect. Well played!

I was surprised it happened without any leaks, but pleased with the result. It's what the bombs are good for.

I’m rather impressed because of the political capital used. This isn’t the kind of decision one should make with an eye to what the people will think about it. If you need to prevent an enemy from getting too powerful to deal with, you need to act even if it is unpopular. An Islamist state with a history of supporting terrorism is not a state that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It’s beyond crazy to me that everyone is worried about poll numbers here when the issue was Iran with access to a weapon that could kill millions.

That's incredibly short term thinking. If you win a battle but lose the ability to fight the war it's a bad move strategically. Even if this strike wiped out all the mentioned bases it doesn't mean Iran will never be able to make a nuke ever again. Lose the midterms as is incredibly likely and he'll be even more impotent then he is now for any of his domestic policy. This does nothing to reverse Israel's already rapidly declining status in the west. It won't be long before people start questioning why we send them 4 billion a year, how it benefits us to have a rogue parasite state that manipulates our government into war.

No, if Iran with a nuke is dangerous, letting them have it because you don’t want to lose a midterm is short sighted. A nuke detonated anywhere on earth would kill millions. That would certainly be worse than losing a midterm. Especially if that nuke hits an American or allied city, an American military base, or some high value target in the Middle East.

Israel is Israel and they’re frankly not part of my analysis here. If Israel didn’t exist, I think the history of Islamic radicalism would make an Islamic nuke a danger to world stability. A religion that says those who kill for God with a weapon that can obliterate a city is not something that would improve my insomnia.

and if you lose the next few terms and the government is full of college campus pro-palestine types and Iran gets the bomb anyways, what then? This isn't a one and done. Iran still exists and has more incentive than ever to develop nukes. There are likely more facilities, new facilities can be built, etc.

If bombing Iran buys us five or ten years, it’s probably worth it. I don’t think they can restart a program we just blew up and have a bomb in two years.

A nuke detonated anywhere on earth would kill millions.

Certainly not. Hiroshima and Nagasaki together killed maybe a quarter-million. Bigger bombs' damage doesn't linearly scale with kilotonnage (which is one reason many small bombs became more fashionable). Tel Aviv and Haifa together have less than a million people, and while nukes are big, nothing Iran would be likely to build could wipe out an entire metro area.

No, everybody hates Iran. Trump won't lose the midterms over this unless he does something dumb like trying to invade by ground.

This will happen only in ground war with Iran. Serbia bombings didn't hurt clinton. And let's be clear - MAGA americans love those kind of display of american might mic drops. As long as the bodycount is 0 and the involvement short - it may even net him votes.

I'm old enough to remember the chest-thumping that happened when Trump dropped a MOAB on ISIS (we do love our acronyms, don't we folks?).

Also when he iced Soleimani.

And when they spent like a week celebrating that dog that helped kill an ISIS leader.

He damn well knows that inflicting a black eye on international opponents without getting your own people killed plays well.

Even OBAMA knew this, hence the fanfare around taking out Bin Laden.

And he's also making a number of his opponents run cover for Iran directly.

Maybe, it's hard to tell these days with online spaces often being echo-chambers. I know quite a few normie republicans in meatspace that are now sitting the midterms out and won't vote for him though, but that is just a single anecdote. The polling for involvement in Iran was incredibly bad, worse than Ukraine. It'll be difficult for the dems to capitalize on given their shift to liberal interventionism and continued support for the Ukraine war at least.

I know quite a few normie republicans in meatspace that are now sitting the midterms out and won't vote for him though, but that is just a single anecdote.

The midterms are far away. Prolonged involvement will tank trump. But a no-fly zone over iran that is manned by Israel, funded by Saudi Arabia and US just selling fuel and munitions and repairs to Israel probably won't.

AOC has concluded that a president ordering an airstrike without congressional approval is grounds for impeachment

I'm assuming there's no good analysis as to why this airstrike is grounds for impeachment whereas all the other airstrikes and drone attacks over the decades weren't?

It’s just aesthetically a very good axe for her to grind. It lets her criticize Trump, but also distinguish herself from the more hawkish establishment boomer-neoliberals in her own party. It curries favor with both isolationists and third worldist zoomers. And there’s little downside risk since almost no one else in Washington will listen to her.

Does she claim those weren't? If she's willing to bite the bullet and say "it was a problem when Obama and Biden did it too" then there's no problem. I certainly would agree with her in that case; the constitution is quite explicit that Congress is to be the one authorizing war.

Maybe that's naive, but isn't it kind of stupid to announce a secret stealth bomber mission by putting it before congress? Just seems counterproductive.

Maybe. But I would say I think it's more important to get proper authorization from the people for use of force, than it is to keep military operations secret. The president already has way too much power, we don't need him getting us into wars without any check on his power.

Well it is a much bigger airstrike than the others. One hellfire from a drone represents maybe 100,000th of the resources invested in this one.

If it was a problem, why did she not call for their impeachment?

I can't possibly answer that question. You might want to ask the woman herself. I just don't think one should accuse people of hypocrisy without evidence, even (as in this case) people I don't like.

why this airstrike is grounds for impeachment whereas all the other airstrikes and drone attacks over the decades weren't

Just like with attempts to impeach Biden over his "corruption" (while Trump exhibiting levels of corruption comparable to Russian oligarchs) -- the only analysis that can be provided is sociological or political, not legal. It can be summarized as "your side did it". And also -- it'll be popular with voters.

Its interesting how the past approximately 10 years of diplomacy in that arena has led to this being possible.

There was some Salami-slicing going on during Trump 1 thanks to the Abraham accords, a number of major Arab countries brought into the Western orbit and shown the benefits of being onside and chilling out about Israel. I have my misgivings about their reliability as 'allies' (something something scorpion and frog) but clearly they have the ability to sit on their hands when told to.

Then Russia got itself entangled in a conflict that keeps it from offering much in the way of support/deterrence.

Then Syria's government fell.

Probably a few other things I'm forgetting, but it all ultimately left Iran with no major buddies to lean on (China, I suppose) and thus the immediate consequences of going it 'alone' against its western adversaries.

Which is what made it safe enough for Israel to pulverize their defense systems from several angles.

Which made it safe enough for the U.S. to commit a huge portion of its strategic stealth bombers to the operation with assurances they'd all make it back, and presuming they had the firepower needed to do the job, could expect to actually cripple Iran this time.

I dunno how far in advance this stuff was planned and anticipated but I think this pretty much answers the "why didn't we do this 40/30/10 years ago" question. Too many uncontrolled variables, much higher risk.

Nothing's ever over. If I were Iran and I had some breathing room I'd probably be offering China near Carte-Blanche to give me some nuke tech. That strategy doesn't usually work in, say, Civilization VI but hey, the U.S. is vastly far ahead on the Science Victory, Cultural Victory, and Space Race Victory tracks, so options for both me and China are limited.

I'd vaguely fear Iran deciding to go full 'blaze of glory' mode and activate any and all contingencies and proxy parties it has abroad and just fire off 90% of its remaining missile stockpiles into Israel and daring the U.S. to put boots on the ground again.

But I don't see that as being the rational response and even if they don't come to the bargaining table, they're probably better off waiting to see if any other conflagration points pop off that might distract U.S. attention.

There was some Salami-slicing going on during Trump 1

Actually Salami was sliced by the Israeli strikes just over a week ago

Okay, I guffawed you clever bastard.

Reuters reporting that the Iranian parliament has voted to close the Straits of Hormuz. Rubio calling for China to pressure Iran into backing down. Are we getting the US Navy involved next? Coalition To Make Sure The Oil Keeps Flowing?

Could that lead to something similar to 1973 oil crisis, which was yet another nail in the Nixon's coffin? Trump campaigning on reducing inflation and lowering gas prices, he balked at introducing the tariffs on the scale he planned, but here he might not have the leverage.

At the same time, it's a huge boon for Putin, just after his minister of economic development was talking at the Economic Forum in Saint Petersburg of the risk of recession...

Close with what exactly? Until they sort out their air defenses everything they have there will be sitting ducks.

Don't forget, that it's not about accessing the Persian gulf per se, it's about increased risk for the civilian maritime transportation which will drive up insurance costs, freight companies will start declining contracts etc. Just a threat of sinking any civilian vessel will affect those things.

They can close it with their navy, which would have a lifetime measured in days if not hours I expect. They can fire on ships from shore, but any fixed installations won't last long so they'll be left basically being the Houthis of the Straits... except facing a lot more opposition. They could mine the straits, but minesweepers exist. And it's quite possible any minelaying will be met with active opposition. But if they really want to do it and are willing to take a lot of damage, they probably can -- it wasn't possible to remove the Houthi capability without invasion. So if Iran is determined I think they could make this end up with boots on the ground, which would definitely be a loss for the US, though a bigger one for them.

They can close it the way Yemen closed the red sea. Tankers are massive, slow moving ships that are easy targets for drones and missiles. They have over 1500 km of mountainous coastline with tankers sailing in proximity to their shores.

The US failed to win against Yemen in a year and a half. This war will be much, much harder.

Mines, missiles, and drones? Civil ships are not exactly small targets and Iranian drones have seen some use in Ukraine. Could get ugly. It's likely the gulf states, East/South Asia and to a lesser degree Europe would be more affected then the US (who is, after all, a net oil exporter these days), so this hits US allies (and China, India etc.) much more then the US and Trump hasn't shown a high degree of concern about them...

Naval mines are one obvious possibility. It’s even conceivable that the mines are already in place, awaiting remote activation—though if they were, I’m sure US/Israeli intelligence would be aware

If anyone wants to watch the press conference from this morning you can find it here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ARwRsOvVmew (starts around 41 minutes).

I didn’t think they really said anything particularly interesting. Still waiting on more substantive comments on the amounts of damage done at the facility.

I'm hoping what appears to me to be fairly intense pressure to avoid an actual invasion keeps American boots of Iranian soil. As with zorching an Iranian general in Iraq during Trump's first term, this seems like a fairly reasonable gamble, but if we get another forever war out of this, that would be unmitigated disaster.

I'm guessing Trump only did this because the MIC assured him we could keep Iran under our figurative boot simply by pushing buttons from afar, doing strikes from the air and continuing to sell weapons to Israel.

That could obviously be false but it's quite pathetic for Iran that Israel and the US can attack them from the air with impunity. Their threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz was dubious already, and after the events of the last week it seems laughable.

There's simply no reason to do a ground invasion.

Will we get regime change this way? Yeah I dunno. Can we keep wrecking their shit and reduce their threat level to near zero? I would bet on that sure.

Think campaign to collapse Syria and not war to oust Saddam Hussein.

Think campaign to collapse Syria and not war to oust Saddam Hussein.

It should be noted that Syria had a decade of civil war before the regime finally collapsed (after Israel took out Hezbollah).

Back in the day, the Allies dropped a massive load of bombs on Nazi Germany, which caused people all over Germany to rebel against the regime now that the Luftwaffe did no longer hold them in check. I kid, nothing of that sort happened, because what kept the people in check was ideology and the GeStaPo, neither of which can be effectively neutralized from the air (without killing literally everyone).

I am not convinced that US/Israel can even indefinitely prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb through targeted bombardment only.

Counterpoint: two really huge bombs on Japan made them surrender unconditionally

I am not convinced that US/Israel can even indefinitely prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb through targeted bombardment only.

The best thing about this question is there's no need to speculate, we seem on track to run the experiment and find out. !remindme 48 months

What actually compelled the emperor to surrender unconditionally was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, coincidentally on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. This had two consequences: the possibility of negotiating a conditional surrender with Soviet mediation, which was the last hope the militarists were clinging to (as the USSR was the last remaining great power still neutral in the Pacific war), was obviously nil from that point; and that whatever remaining military units stationed in Manchukuo that they were planning to deploy es reinforcements against the final US invasion were going to be destroyed.

Counterpoint: two really huge bombs on Japan made them surrender unconditionally

Almost unconditionally; they insisted on keeping Emperor Hirohito, although this was not couched as a condition. Fair enough since it was Hirohito's personal intervention which resulted in the surrender.

Not directed at you, and I mostly agree with the rest of your message, but who are those "MIC" people? Do they have names? It's just like left constantly complain about "capitalism", "patriarchy", or what else have you, but for the anti-establishment left and right it's "MIC". Do we have credible reports of Raytheon CEO visiting Trump, asking him to bomb Iran? (an interesting aside, Wikipedia doesn't even have an article for their CEO).

You know. The deep state. Them. The powers that be.

More seriously, if Trump convenes the extremely serious military people and they present him a limited menu of military actions he can do that is basically the same set of plans they've had for 20 years, that's the MIC at work. The names and faces can change but the dusty binder from the drawer stays the same.

Has the USG directly confirmed the use of MOP? I’m asking seriously. I only see reports where it’s implied based on the context of us having spent the last week talking about them. The X community seems to doubt they were used. There is a lot of speculation that this was another telegraphed strike that allows US and Iran to save face and deescalate.

I have zero confidence in my ability to know what actually happened here and make any predictions about the future.

I decided to check in on plebbit over at /moderatepolitics/. What a total embarrassment. There’s 1000 comments there all basically saying that Iran has been denuclearized, defanged, and is is either about to collapse or lash out with mass casualty events against the USA. As I said, I suppose that’s possible. Perhaps we did fully destroy Fardow with 6 MOP and it was a perfect op. But the lack of even entertaining other possibilities is sad, but not surprising.

It's not possible for a MOAP to destroy a facility 100m deep in rock. It's intended to strike bunkers 40m deep in soils.

You would need a lot of successive strikes, possibly with something in between else to remove rubble and allow deeper penetration.

Has the USG directly confirmed the use of MOP?

Yes. 14 MOPs from 7 B-2s. I don't think any bomb damage imagery has been released, however.

The X community seems to doubt they were used.

Watching the DR apply the same "America worst" logic formerly typically used by the antiwar left is certainly amusing.

I was quite annoyed that I got more details quicker from the Daily Mail than I did most US outlets. Which included satellite images, though I can’t remember the provenance.

With that said I think if you look closely at the statements and rhetoric that we’ve heard so far, plus the physical facts, it seems highly likely this bombing run wasn’t enough for full destruction. They would probably need to pound it for a week to be more sure. Clearly the Trump admin is banking on Iranian peace seeking - I think they have a decent chance at it, but far from certain.

Watching the DR apply the same "America worst" logic formerly typically used by the antiwar left is certainly amusing.

I get the impression that the DR largely is the antiwar left, who got kicked out of the left because reasons.

Watching the DR apply the same "America worst" logic formerly typically used by the antiwar left is certainly amusing.

The woke right strikes again.

How is that the woke right?

I don't think any bomb damage imagery has been released, however.

BBC has a satellite photo, showing six entrance points at Fordow. I say "entrance points" rather than "craters", because you won't see the true extent of the damage from above ground.

Has the USG directly confirmed the use of MOP?

There are only 3 things being thrown out of this airplane in that kind of operation that make sense. They are by order of letality MOPs, Nukes and Chuck Norris. It wasn't nukes. We would know. It wasn't chuck Norris - you would only need 1 plane, not 6. And there won't be a need for in flight refueling - when they run out of fuel he will just get off the aircraft and push it to the destination. So it leaves MOPs.

And inside those facilities there is a shitload of nasty stuff that could create what sjw call toxic working environment. So I think that even minor damage could cascade into unsalvigably contaminated facility.

There is always possibility that iran has backup facility and some sort of top secret clandestine protocol that they will pull all of the enriched stuff to it with first signs if danger. And they already did it two weeks ago. Whether they are capable of pulling such tight opsec is exercise left to the reader.

And inside those facilities there is a shitload of nasty stuff that could create what sjw call toxic working environment.

The activity of U-235 seems to be around 80MBq/kg. Not something to keep under your pillow, but also not something where any reasonably quantity will kill you within minutes.

Sure, for the centrifuges, you need UF6, but even that becomes solid below 56 degree centigrade.

To get to that you would also require hydrofluoric acid and fluorine, both of which are definitely nasty, but also things you can clean up even if you care about the environment or the life expectancy of your cleaners, which likely are not issues for Iran.

Hitting the enriched uranium would be hard in any case. The Iranians anticipated the possibility of an attack, so the obvious thing to do would be to dig a kilometer long tunnel, and have a few people whose job it is to carry the good stuff to a randomly selected point in the tunnel every half hour. Unless half of your guards work for Mossad (in which case you have a bigger problem), this should work well enough.

I think the main thing to hit would be the centrifuges. They are not very portable, require a ton of power and supervision and are nothing that the Iranians can easily mass-produce, so losing them would really hurt them.

Of course, we do not know if the attacks actually hit them.

In the long run, I expect the Iranians to win this one, because it is much easier for them to tunnel through another few 100m of bedrock than it will be for the US to bomb through that.

The alternative would be to settle for bombing the entrances of access tunnels whenever they pop up, but that would be a long-term commitment.

It wasn't chuck Norris - you would only need 1 plane, not 6.

Well, clearly the other stealth bombers are diversions to disguise Chuck Norris's actual entry point for as long as possible.

Umm... The common between Chuck Norris and the necrophiliac is that every point is an entry point

What for? He'll intercept any missiles with his bare hands. Or feet, as it were.

There is always possibility that iran has backup facility and some sort of top secret clandestine protocol that they will pull all of the enriched stuff to it with first signs if danger. And they already did it two weeks ago

It seems unlikely that they could do this without being seen by Israeli or US assets. You can hide stuff underground but when you start moving it, it's visible.

Here a Premier London agent named, Sigismund Neumann kept the large diamond for safe keeping. When they transported the large diamond, they had to take extreme measures to keep it safe. The Cullinan was sent in a plain box via parcel post while detectives from London were asked to transport a replica as a decoy publically.

They have 500kg of the good stuff. That is 25 liters of uranium. It takes two plain vans. In the chaos after a strike with all the ambulances, contractors that repair and so on it is easy to be lost in the fray IF you have guys that can keep their mouths shut and their signatures are not too visible. You only need couple of embedded guys there with the proper credentials to take over the uranium when it hits the fan.

AOC has concluded that a president ordering an airstrike without congressional approval is grounds for impeachment. Fetterman thinks it was the right move. Both are, I suppose, on brand.

I suppose AOC would be (tautologically) right if she had the votes, but she doesn't. As I read it, the War Powers Act only requires notification after the fact in this case.

On the one hand I don't think Iran has provided the US sufficient reason to attack them (at least not one that's recent and public). On the other... eh, Iran's government sucks and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

On the one hand I don't think Iran has provided the US sufficient reason to attack them

Eh, you say "Death to America" even once and I consider my country wholly justified in destroying you. Talk shit get hit is natural law.

So, if hypothetically, the elected leader of a country opined that a polity should be removed from their lands and a Mediterranean beach resort should be constructed on their vacated lands, they would be justified in destroying the country of that leader? Asking for a friend.

Doesn't matter, Hamas would already destroy the US given half a chance.

Sure, but per the generalization of @Hadad's claim, he would consider them "wholly justified in destroying" the US.

Yes, they are our enemy, and we are their enemy. The difference is we can destroy them, and they can get destroyed.

So everyone is "wholly justified" in destroying everyone else? That is a bit of a nihilistic conception of justice, there.

Everyone involved in an ongoing conflict is usually pretty justified in pursuing the conflict to its conclusion, yes. Especially between states. If a grudge is big enough to motivate a war, it's big enough to motivate winning that war.

On the one hand I don't think Iran has provided the US sufficient reason to attack them (at least not one that's recent and public). On the other... eh, Iran's government sucks and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

That is the consensus in my part of twitter.

I am skeptical the US used any MOPs or even B-2 bombers. One, of the images/videos I've seen, these attacks look like cruise missiles and the damage appears mostly superficial. Two, the US didn't even use B-2 bombers against the Houthis in the failed campaign against them. If I had to guess, the Trump admin even warned Iran when and where they were going to attack and basically begged them to not retaliate and to allow this to be a one-off attack.

This appears to be a made-for-tv theatrical performance to claim something was done and to hope that's the end of it. In my opinion, this is going to lead to Iran continuing their daily attacks against Israel and withdrawing from the NPT. I don't think they'll directly attack US assets in the area, but I do think they'll close the straight of Hormuz for any European or American traffic. And I also think the Houthis will resume their attacks against any European or American ships in the Red Sea.

Trump admin behavior during this ordeal has been profoundly unserious, counterproductive, and dumb. If this strike leads anywhere other than stopping here, I'm going to predict a major loss for Trump and the GOP in any upcoming elections. This move allows Democrats to pivot from defending criminal illegals being deported and other losing 80-20 issues to claiming the anti-war mantle (however silly that is given recent history) and it will work. Of the MAGA and Trump supporters I know, they are not happy and will simply refuse to show up and vote at all unless Trump manages to deliver something big.

the US didn't even use B-2 bombers against the Houthis in the failed campaign against them

I'm not sure what your point is there - why would the US have busted out B-2s against the Houthis?

they move them into the area for use and decided the risk profile was too high against the Houthis so instead they used almost entirely standoff munitions

I don't think they'll directly attack US assets in the area, but I do think they'll close the straight of Hormuz for any European or American traffic.

This is less devastating than people think because Iranian oil flows to China, Japan, India and elsewhere would continue and even Europe is less reliant on Gulf oil than it previous was (and the shortfall could be made up).

The real impact would only happen by closing off the strait (by mining it, probably), which would send the price skyrocketing and which would infuriate China.

Aren't Israelis guaranteed to blow up the Kharg island oil terminal and any other terminals if Iran refuses to hand over the uranium?

The skyrocketing price may infuriate China, but the Chinese won't do anything about it. More importantly, it will cause the price to skyrocket in the US, which give the Iranians leverage. Not much leverage, but the narrative could become that Trump made an unnecessary strike on Iran that he acted like was a one-off but that caused gas prices to soar and necessitated US naval intervention, escalating the war.

Things could get weird. The US (and North America as a whole) are net oil producers these days. Shutting off the gulf is such a large shock to the system you could see some pretty significant price divergence and shortages between regions as infrastructure limits could prevent fully arbitraging the difference. You could also see political impediments to price balancing as well (wouldn't put it past Trump to ban oil exports to keep US prices in check even if it's a huge blow to our allies) and most Canadian crude has to transit the US to reach the world markets. You could even see divergence in the US where West Coast is more exposed then East coast due to Jone's Act restrictions making it difficult to move oil around the Rockies.

In addition to just Iranian oil, I think something like 80% of all traffic through the straight is to Asian markets. I doubt the Iranians will mine the straight because of the likelihood is will harm non-targeted traffic, but if their capability in the straight or their significant assets there (the port there controls the overwhelming vast majority of trade in and out of Iran) are targeted I could see them doing it anyway.

Iran originally decided to pursue 60% enrichment after Israel attacked their nuclear sites in 2021. This attack happened 3 years after Trump ended an agreement to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, which was criticized by NATO, EU, France, the UK, etc, but was clearly requested by Trump’s Zionist funders. Iran’s radiopharmaceutical industry is genuine — they commercialize isotopes that only Germany has been able to produce. Iran needs to pursue its own cancer treatments because sanctions prevent access to state of the art treatments.

I hope Iran gets a nuke now. We can’t have religious extremist states have nukes — Israel is well on its way in becoming majority Haredi, whereas Iran is on a clear secularization path. A nuclear Iran would counter the power that Israel exerts in the region and may even prevent the genocide of Palestinians.

whereas Iran is on a clear secularization path

[citation needed]

A beginner overview

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/iran-secular-shift-gamaan.html

A study

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/5/592

People have been saying this since the late 1980s. The IRGC and mullahs’ grip on power is too strong. There is a fed up secular elite but their casualty tolerance is extremely low and as long as they can take their money in and out and vacation in the many countries where they can drink/fuck/etc (and they largely can) they won’t be a threat. The regime essentially banned dog ownership a few weeks ago just because it started trending on their social media and some scholars consider it un-Islamic; not the behavior of a regime desperately accepting some liberalization. The same happened after the hijab protests, they didn’t give an inch even if enforcement remains somewhat lax in Tehran (which it was before too). In the 1990s (the last major liberal turn) they assassinated a bunch of people effectively openly and then even semi-admitted it (politicians, businessmen, authors, journalists, public intellectuals) until the PM backed out of all his promises.

Wishcasting, as has been going on with respect to Iran since the waning days of the Reagan administration. Most likely they're reaching a non-representative set, with religious Iranians being more likely to eschew their survey. Islam tends to the more strict, not less, from the bottom up; any moderating influence comes from a "degenerate" (or Westernized) elite, which Iran lacks (largely because they killed them or drove them out in the Revolution)

What metric would you trust?

  • TFR is going down, indicative of women no longer internalizing the values of Islam

  • Hijab is becoming less common. The requirement is for the veil to fully cover the hair, but from watching any video of Iranian streets most women totally ignore this — it just barely covers the back of their hair

  • a majority of Iranians use VPNs

The Iranian people were always pretty secular. They never had a grassroots Wahhabist movement like the Arab states did. It’s like the Soviet ‘20s where the state is ideological but the people are mostly indifferent.

They didn't have a grassroots Wahhabist movement because Wahhabism is Sunni and they're Shiite. They did have a popular Islamic revolution which resulted in the current regime.

The Islamist faction didn’t have huge popular support, it was (again, like the Bolsheviks) a minority faction that was very well organized and coordinated compared to the fractious mass of the other revolutionary factions. That’s why the current administration has such a domestic siege mentality and has to exercise a lot of top down force compared to say, Saudi Arabia.

TFR is going down, indicative of women no longer internalizing the values of Islam

TFR is going down in almost every country. In Iran, which had a brief 1970s baby boom under the Shah, TFR has declined almost every year since the Islamic Revolution, even when it was rapidly becoming more conservative.

Yeah.

Any argument based on "TFR is going down, which clearly shows that X is the cause" is trivially defeated by the fact that every country has this same outcome regardless of the cultural starting point.

Its almost legitimately bad faith to deploy that argument.

If the argument is “Iran is a religious extremist country”, then we should see religious extremist TFR, which coincides wherever there is religious extremism, always. In such diverse places as

  • Minnesota, where the Salafi-infused Muslim households have a TFR of 5, and the women wear niqab with more frequency than Iran

  • Brooklyn New York, where the Haredim have a TFR of 6

  • The rare regions of traditional Catholicism in France

  • TLM-attending Catholics throughout America (simply represents the most extremist branch of Catholicism)

If you’re telling me that Iran has a religious extremist problem, and yet they can’t manage to get their women to have more than 2 kids or wear a veil property, I am going to conclude someone has lied to you. Because this is the hallmark, textbook sign of a society filled with Abrahamic conviction. Especially among Muslims, where the particular sphere of women has always been greatly delineated. Religious extremism means “clerics tell me what to do and I obey”, and if not even the women obey then no one cares. So I conclude that there is no extremism, based upon this fact in addition to other facts.

More comments

Any argument based on "TFR is going down, which clearly shows that X is the cause" is trivially defeated by the fact that ever country has this same outcome regardless of the cultural starting point.

The starting point may differ, but do those countries share any cultural drift? For instance, is there any country that has a lowering TFR over a span of time where women's education and liberty are reduced? I think there's a strong argument that globally, TFR is falling anywhere where women are getting more empowered. The degree and rate of empowerment might differ, of course, but as far as I can tell the root cause everywhere is women in higher education and the workforce.

More comments

TFR is closely tied to religious conservatism everywhere in the world. Iran’s TFR has been down since 1984. Their small blip from 1974->1980 is even less than than 1945 to 1957 America and its decrease coincides with an economic slump. The fact that the Iranian revolution even happened disproves the idea that a majority of Iranians were even on board with the secularization trend.

Maybe in the sense that as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps becomes ever more entrenched as a state-within-a-state, the corruptive influence of all that money and administrative self-interest will secularize it like the Egyptian Army?

Of course, then you get dynamics where the IRGC's perks and privileges derive from a permanent proxy-war footing, which merely means they'd increasingly rationalize sustained proxy conflicts on increasingly secular grounds, as Pakistan does.

Maybe? I would not mock someone who would claim that secularization is possible/likely. But "Iran is on a clear secularization path" is just baseless as of now.

The reason Westerners see an Iranian nuke as a lynchpin is because if Iran proves it has nuclear weapons, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia will quickly also get nuclear weapons and essentially the NPT will fall apart; however, given the US attacked IAEA inspected sites in direct violation of the treaty, I believe they've hastened its demise anyway.

Iran was already in violation of the treaty. IAEA report to this effect is what prompted the Isreali air campaign in the first place.

'You don't have a sufficient explanation for a radioactive aluminum ring from the year 2003 which we've brought up 74x therefore you're in violation of your obligations under the safeguards agreement from 1974 w/re to the NPT and we cannot verify your nuclear program is for peaceful purposes' isn't really in the same category of violation as 'NPT member-state attacks IAEA inspected facility in another NPT member-state almost certainly using information gained from the IAEA inspectors themselves.'

One is the sort of violations you could likely find in any NPT member-state if they were subjected to 1/10th the harassment and silliness Iran has dealt with for decades and the other is a serious and meaningful violation of the NPT's explicit language.

The vast majority of the report is many years old which makes the conclusion now rather puzzling. The actual impetus appears to be the stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, but 60% enriched uranium isn't itself a violation of the NPT.

Not to mention how the report and the ensuing aftermath quickly revealed the IAEA is full of hostile spies which coordinate and communicate with non-member states who have secret nuclear programs.

The NPT itself does not specify any thresholds directly.

Each Non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

But the IAEA-Iran treaty also does not specify any thresholds.

I was surprised to learn that Iran kept being a party to the NPT after Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. The 2025-05 report states that:

54 . Iran continues to cooperate with the Agency on matters of routine safeguards implementation, and the Agency implements a large verification effort in Iran commensurate with Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and activities.61 However, in a number of respects as outlined in this report its cooperation with the Agency has been less than satisfactory, as described below.

86 . In light of the above assessment, the Director General reiterates his urgent call upon Iran to cooperate fully and effectively with the Agency. Unless and until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.

Or course, after the Trump bombing, they are now rectifying that mistake, and likely will not be a party to the NPT in 90 days.

Israel isn't a NPT member state.

The actual impetus appears to be the stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, but 60% enriched uranium isn't itself a violation of the NPT.

With modern centrifuges that's a few days away from material for efficient uranium bombs.

60% enriched uranium isn't itself a violation of the NPT

Israel isn't a NPT member state.

the United States is

The linchpin is Israel: a country with an undeclared nuclear weapons program in violation of international law, who some speculate killed our President in 1963 in order to secure nuclear weapons, who stole our own uranium to create their weapons, and a country that we provide aid to in violation of our own laws which prohibit us from providing aid to countries with undeclared nuclear programs in violation of the IAEA.

Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons and behavior in the region compels every sane country to pursue nuclear weapons, especially when they see what happened to Iran, a country which could have pursued but did not pursue nukes. Saudi Arabia apparently has some agreement with Pakistan to obtain nukes whenever requested, because they originally invested in its nuclear program. According to Russia yesterday, there are other countries interested in supplying Iran nukes, perhaps China, or perhaps this is a bluff.

Some speculate all sorts of things. Please preemptively provide evidence, not speculation.

undeclared

This word is doing a lot here. Declaration doesn’t really mean anything; it made sense for Pakistan for obvious geopolitical reasons, and every single nuclear state is aware of Israel’s nuclear capability. They could ‘declare’ it tomorrow and nothing would change, none of the major nuclear powers accept or are fully truthful around any international inspections or the full extent of their capability for standard secrecy reasons.

”undeclared” is doing a lot here

Not at all. The Symington Amendment and the Glenn Amendment forbid America from providing aid to countries which have no IAEA oversight.

This is the first time I have heard "Jews did this" as the reason behind the Kennedy assassination.

This is the first time I have heard surprise at a theory of 'Jews did this' for conspiracy fodder events.

Honestly if Jews really did half of the shit they are accused of doing they'd be the coolest ethnic group on the planet hands down.

Imagine the sci-fi plot hooks for aliens who only know groups by reputation.

Well it couldn't possibly have been the CIA, the Mob, or some radicalized socialist, ergo it must have been the perfidious Jew.

Been a theory floating around for a long time. The death of JFK was certainly beneficial to Israel with regards to JFK's consistent stance on being against nuclear weapons. Which is more than enough to get the conspiracy impulses going.

Saudi Arabia wants nuclear weapons because of Iran, not because of Israel. It's hard to accept the NPT/MiddleEast is lynchpinned by Israel when they lied, schemed, and betrayed their allies into nuclear weapons 60 years ago but it's been 60 years and all of the countries mentioned do not have nuclear weapons.

If Israel surrendered its nuclear program, I doubt it would change the landscape much. Iran has a latent capability because of the US, not because of Israel. Previously they had a latent capability because of Iraq, not because of Israel.

Iran has so far resisted joining any defensive block and their cooperation with other great powers has been pretty minimal in order to maintain their sovereignty and independence. I would guess they will have offers of assistance and they're more likely to swallow the costs now and it will make the world worse as a result.

The US/Israel continuing down the path of behaving insanely and the world relying on other actors to be reasonable to avoid catastrophe is eventually going to end in disaster.

their cooperation with other great powers has been pretty minimal in order to maintain their sovereignty and independence. I would guess they will have offers of assistance and they're more likely to swallow the costs now and it will make the world worse as a result.

HESA Shahed 136/Geran-2 alone is enough to drop "pretty minimal", I think

They provided blueprints and a couple thousand, so maybe (gasp) $30,000,000 in crappy drones. That's less than a single jet.

Russians are now making Geran-2 drones wholly on their own.

who some speculate killed our President in 1963 in order to secure nuclear weapons

and some speculate that moon landing was faked, "some speculate" is worth nothing

do you believe this nonsense? Then at least state it openly. Do you consider it as nonsense? Then why you mention it?

The risk is that this escalates to a broader conflict. Not Iran vs whoever--Iran is a paper tiger, and all other factors being equal it's good that it's now further from getting nukes than it was (one hopes). But I'm worried this triggers a series of international incidents that leads to a Taiwan war. Although it seems far-fetched, it also seemed far-fetched that an assassination of an archduke could spiral to a world wide conflagration.

Iran needs to respond somehow, for domestic political reasons if nothing else. And, one thing leads to another, and Hormuz ends up mined, and China decides, well, the world is going to suck for a couple years and the US is otherwise occupied, might as well take advantage of the moment.

Don't worry about Taiwan war.

American magazines of anti-missile interceptors are so low they'd never even get carriers in range to help Taiwan.

The war would be, perhaps, a blockade of Malacca straits and some posturing/cyber warfare etc.

Although it seems far-fetched, it also seemed far-fetched that an assassination of an archduke could spiral to a world wide conflagration.

That is absolutely not what happened. The war was inevitable at this point. It is not surprising that the killing of the archduke lead to the war, it is surprising that it had taken so long for something to lit powder keg.

Yes, the world at that point was a powder keg, and you can name at least a dozen incidents before the assassination that could have set it off. The assassination was far from the root cause, but it was the proximate event in a spiral.

The world is in a similar state today, and normalcy bias is what prevents us from seeing it. Seemingly minor events can trigger repercussions far out of expectations if conditions are right.

The world is in a similar state today

Not really.

There were two main dynamics to the state of geopolitical affairs that let WW1 be WW1. One was the treaty situation, in which most involved states on both sides had staked their security policies / international prestige / credibility that they also needed for other interests into the alliance system. The second was the fact that four great powers (France, UK, Germany, Russia) were competing for influence in a very constrained geopolitical area (peninsular Europe) that they could all project power into. The later is what led to the former is what led to the domino effect.

There is no equivalent concentration of competition or overlap of treaties. As much as the Russians have tried to style a [insert term of choice for grouping] of resistance to the US amongst Iran, Russia, NK, and China, the relationship between them has been fundamentally transactional, not alliance based, and the last few years have emphasized that. The US alliance network similarly does have overlapping effects- there are very few obligations (by design) for out-of-regional issues. Relatedly, most of the non-US actors in the modern system cannot project power to each other if they wanted to, and most US allies in different regions cannot and would not project power to the other as a 'we will fight together' sort of way.

There were two main dynamics to the state of geopolitical affairs that let WW1 be WW1.

Another reason for WW1 is that for millennia, being belligerent was a net positive to states in most cases. I mean, obviously having a war was always net negative (unless the alternative was starvation, perhaps), but in earlier times, it had at least been a good deal for the elites (and arguably even some of the commoners, though not the commoners finding themselves in the path of an army) on the winning side. The militant nationalism of the 1800s was a consequence of that.

But by 1910, the underlying reality had changed, because weapon systems had gotten a lot more deadly and railroad logistics limited the land gains made from offensive operations, leading to the trench stalemates. Suddenly being belligerent was maladaptive. Few politicians or populations would have been enthusiastic about starting WW1 if they had known the meat grinder it would become. Instead, they were enthusiastic -- finally a chance to kick some hated foreigner's butt again, like in the good old times. Instead they got Verdun.

When WW2 started, there was a lot less enthusiasm all around, because most participants were not looking forward to more industrialized warfare.

Excellent addition. Especially as not only have the costs of war risen since then, but so have the costs of occupation post-'victory.'

AKs and RPGs were enough to break the cost-benefit logic of emperial economies, and IEDs and manpads could make even 'less total' occupations prohibitively expensive. The modern development of drones are an even greater obstacle to projecting power at a, well, global scale.

This doesn't mean a 'world war' is impossible, but it really does beg the question of who is going to be fighting where how. The US ability at power projection is absolutely going to be hemmed in in the weeks/months/years/decades to come, but so is everyone else.

Total informational blackout, facial ID systems and military drones are going to make occupations much less painful. If you can conduct head counts, track every single person with with cameras or transponders and run AIs to spot suspicious activity, anomalous food use or insurgent activity, war of conquest gets a lot easier.

Also, the age of hobbyist level drones being militarily useful against China or Chinese friendly states ends 5 years from now, at worst.

Total informational blackout, facial ID systems and military drones are going to make occupations much less painful.

And then I use some zero day because you vibe coded the software and your own network is busy killing you.

More comments

...until you get outside of the cities with the infrastructure to support a constant surveillance system. Which is to say, most of any given country, including China.

Smart city technologies are indeed a significant counter-insurgency technology. They are not, however, the end-all-be-all, particularly if you have to fight your way into a country to install your own. 'I won't have this problem if I set up a nation-wide panopticon' still requires you to set up a nation-wide panopticon, and those are expensive even without active local and regional resistance, let alone global support flows from cyber attacks / satellite communication support / sanctuary and safezone logistics / etc.

More comments

Also, many ways things that made war profitable (at least to winners) are far less valuable nowadays or treated as not acceptable.

Slavery? Used to be absurdly profitable and OK, nowadays it is neither. Except extreme fringe cases.

Looting? Looting modern factories gives you nearly nothing, Russians stealing fridges in Ukraine resulted in mockery, not envy.

The same for occupation, glory, rape and so on - now occupation is clear net negative for basically all involved. Glory? There may be a bit, but not much and many will hate you. Rape? In general opinion here changed in direction similar to slavery and it got less useful with sexual revolution.

In the end, Iran will have nukes. They’re too large, too developed and have a relatively good academic pipeline in the hard sciences such that it’s inevitable. It might be a year, three years, five years, but they will have them.

A ground invasion of Iran by the US is impossible. The only hope for regime change is either that there’s some mass minority uprising against the Persians (very unlikely, they’re not staunch ethnic nationalists and have mollified most of the minorities quite well) or that there’s a middle-class ‘color revolution’ in Tehran and the mullahs and IRGC just kind of give up in that late stage GDR type way and melt away into the crowds (which is also extremely unlikely because they know what they have to lose).

At the same time, Iran’s near term options for retaliation are limited. They can’t shut down the strait because the Chinese will hit the roof and selectively bombing ships is a bad idea (the true shutdown scenario, as I understand it, would be mining the strait, and that’s not going to distinguish between Chinese ships and Western ones). If they bomb Saudi oilfields it will only hasten the return of Abraham Accord type stuff just when they’d achieved some diplomatic successes with the Gulf Arabs.

Some of the best analysis in this thread!

mass minority uprising against the Persians

Azeris staff most of the government, presidents, generals, ayatollahs etc. There is no racial animosity here.

Exactly, and it would have to be them.

Persians rising up against the Azeri controlled state, is more plausible, since in a purely national lens, Azeris currently control the government as both the current president and supreme leader are Azeri. (I don't think either will happen nor that nationalities are a useful lens here, because there are so many and very few people are "only" "Persian".)

This. The question is simply if it is better to delay their bomb by a few years at the cost of further antagonizing them.

Most nuclear powers have paid a very low blood toll for their nuclear weapons program. (Arguably, the US paid a tremendous indirect toll, as all the resources they earmarked for the Manhattan project would otherwise have gone into mundane military equipment which would have saved the lives of their soldiers, which is doubtlessly one reason why the pressure to use the bomb was so high. But emotionally, this is not equivalent to the Axis having assassinated Oppenheimer and a dozen of his colleagues and having selectively bombed Los Alamos.)

Not so the Iranians, when they finally hold the bombs in their hands they will have paid dearly with the lives of their best and brightest as well as hundreds of workers and years of sanctions. Simply going the North Korea route of MAD, announcing that their days of getting bombed are now over, and thank all the martyrs for securing the peace of Iran might not play well with their stakeholders, who have been raised on the promise of driving the Jews back into the sea. (Of course, it could also be that they plan to nuke Tel Aviv the minute they have a bomb, consequences be damned, and that this was the plan since the 80s, in which case antagonizing them further would not matter.)

From a tactical perspective, Iranian nuclear missiles will be extremely fragile. You can put your centrifuges in a deep mine to recover them after they get bombed, but there is no way to have your ballistic missile launch-ready and still have it launch-ready after its silo gets hit by a conventional bunker-buster. I think in wargaming, threatening your enemies nuclear missiles, so that they either have to use them or lose them is how conventional wars go nuclear.

A lot of nuclear powers do not really have to worry about someone taking out their retaliatory capabilities. The USSR had ICBM silos a thousand kilometers within their airspace, and nuclear missile subs which would have been hard to take out. They certainly had satellite surveillance to detect US mass launches.

Now consider Iran with a few nuclear silos. They know that the West is willing to bomb them to destroy their nukes. They also know that Israel can violate their airspace with impunity. (Presumably, Israel would first knock out their radars during a normal attack, which would give them some advance warnings, but how confident are they that they can see the latest US stealth bombers on their radar? And given that Western intelligence was able to infect their centrifuge control system with malware once, how confident are they that their radar systems are clean?) They know that Israel has invested a ton in missile defense and would probably gamble on being able to shoot down a lone surviving ballistic missile or two.

This means that they will be on a hair trigger. The US and Israel will have no credible way that they are willing to engage in MAD with Iran instead of trying to take them out with a first strike. Any time an animal gets into a transformer and electrocutes itself, cutting power to a radar station, there is a decent chance that whoever is in charge will decide that this means that Israel is finally going for their nukes and launch.

(Arguably, the US paid a tremendous indirect toll, as all the resources they earmarked for the Manhattan project would otherwise have gone into mundane military equipment which would have saved the lives of their soldiers

Like what really?

American industry provided almost two-thirds of all the Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks. In four years, American industrial production, already the world's largest, doubled in size.

American soldiers stationed in the pacific used airplanes to churn ice cream (mount on the wing use some kind of RAM turbine to stir, fly high for one hour), and they converted the excess ships into ice cream supplies for the fleet.

Warheads on missiles are removable. All they'd need to do to launch a nuke is replace the warhead in one of their missiles with a nuclear one.

They know that Israel has invested a ton in missile defense and would probably gamble on being able to shoot down a lone surviving ballistic missile or two.

Israeli ABM consistently fails to intercept fast missiles that evade. It's simply too hard a problem. You need to track them exactly and guide interceptors, which have guidance issues bc of aerodynamic heating onto the incoming stuff.

They can intercept ballistic missiles all right, but not the more modern, faster ones that glide ..

Warheads on missiles are removable. All they'd need to do to launch a nuke is replace the warhead in one of their missiles with a nuclear one.

For a ballpark number of an early nuclear bomb, we might look at Little Boy, which weighted 4.4 tons. Sure, a warhead would have different design constraints than a bomb which has to fit in a B-29, but it is reasonably to assume that any early warhead would weight a multiple of its fissile mass, perhaps half a ton, not something you can easily move around.

More importantly, to play MAD, you have to have launch-ready nuclear weapons. You want to be sure that your enemy can not take out your ability to retaliate with a first strike. Iran does not have missile submarines and also does not have any aircraft which can be reliably make it to Israel, so the only arm of their nuclear triad would be ground-based missiles fired either from stationary silos or vehicles. Either of these only work if you get the missile in the air before your launcher is hit.

If you opt to keep your retaliatory warheads in a deep bunker safe from harm, you will find that you do not have enough time between the first warning of an impeding attack and your bunker being hit to take your warheads out of the bunker and mount it on a missile. Even if the warhead itself is kept safe, after being hit you will not be in any position to launch it -- your access tunnels to your bunker will be full of rubble, your nuclear-capable missiles and launch pads near the surface will be destroyed, and the only retaliation your nuke offers is blowing up your own bunker. All your enemy has to do is to make sure that you have other priorities than digging through rubble in a nuclear crater in the middle of a war which you are fighting with severely degraded capabilities, which seems plausible enough.

Expecting Iranians not to be able to build compact, boosted fission warheads 70 years after such were first built is unreasonable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon

Note that they do have an interest in lithium 6 separation.

More importantly, to play MAD, you have to have launch-ready nuclear weapons.

Chinese spent decades with hydrogen bombs and a definitely not launch ready posture.

Neither India nor Pakistan have MAD capability, yet their weapons are still deemed useful.

For the purposes of scaring away carrier groups, fission warheads are entirely sufficient. While you may think glassing cities after the enemy blew up a carrier or military base of yours is a proportional response, most of the world wouldn't think so.

This is not an argument for the inevitability of a nuclear Islamic Republic, it is an argument to expand the target list.

I would be shocked if this results in boots in the ground. Like with Soleimani, seems like gamble that stops with the air strikes (plus whatever Israel is up to).

People exclaiming loudly about how dangerous this is while also campaigning for increasing escalation in Ukraine against an actual nuclear adversary are not serious people.

I'm highly against more foreign intervention but this seems fine to me. A nuclear Iran seems to be very bad in very obvious ways.

People exclaiming loudly about how dangerous this is while also campaigning for increasing escalation in Ukraine against an actual nuclear adversary are not serious people.

I see few people arguing that NATO should enter a shooting war with Russia. Even providing air defense coverage (which would involve NATO shooting at Russian planes) is not in the overton window. Providing conventional military aid to a proxy has long been established as an acceptable cold war conduct with low risk of nuclear escalation.

I'm highly against more foreign intervention but this seems fine to me. A nuclear Iran seems to be very bad in very obvious ways.

I agree that a nuclear Iran seems bad, but the question is if US airstrikes will indefinitely delay the Iran acquiring nukes. If Iran acquiring nukes eventually is a forgone conclusion, then these attacks might be net negative in that they make it much more likely that Iran will not stick to MAD.

I've long been interested in how people, when talking about Ukraine, use generic terms with little meaning like "increasing escalation" to make comparisons of things that obviously aren't comparable - in this case, the direct use of the American bomber fleet, which obviously hasn't been happening in Ukraine and does not seem like something that is happening.

American weapons guided with American intelligence have hit Russian targets. I fail to see how different that is to bombers dropping bombs.

Ukrainian naval drones depend solely on Star link for comms.

Interestingly enough, a lot of Russian frontline units also depend on Starlink.

Also, there is a lot of American tech in Russian missiles.

Does US support Russian invasion of Ukraine?

It's sometimes used but I have doubts about the 'a lot's. SpaceX disables access for the ones in Russia. They're easily capable of preventing Russians from using them.

Supplying weapons and intelligence is widely considered as different than using your own weapons, controlled by your soldiers using your intelligence.

Does not exactly make sense, but that is how it was treated for long time.

I think it’s a bit more than “we think they are here.” From my understanding, we did everything but pull the trigger and without us Ukraine couldn’t have fired some of the weapons.

Yes, I know it does not exactly make sense whether you have this ritual step, but that is how it was treated for long time.

Vietnam war was weirder, if that is any help. For some bizarre reason USA decided to outright not attack SAM sites because Russian soldiers were shooting at them from there.

Whose bombers?

Tbh the distinction between forces attacking and just supplying other forces that attack is somewhat lost on me, but a cursory reading of cold war era conflicts (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc) clearly indicates states consider it to be very different.

I think modern weapons are different from ‘Nam area. My understanding with some of the weapons is we basically did everything but bit the fire button.

You mentioned Vietnam, but Soviet Union operated some SAM units on the side of Viet Cong. Not to mention repairing equipment, training soldiers and assisting in other ways on the ground. To my knowledge, it doesn't happen in Russia-Ukraine War (aside from "International Legion" who are just volunteers and mercenaries from all around the world). The US couldn't do anything about that.

Kinda has to be, if every single country involved in manufacturing any bullet used to fire at your troops is now at war with you, things would escalate very rapidly.

All the more so in the current age of globalized industry.

That said, yeah, if your country is selling fully manufactured high end weaponry to another country with the basic knowledge that its going to be used in an extant conflict, you're clearly tapdancing on a somewhat blurry line.

Selling gasoline to a belligerent country is at least plausibly deniable, since it has civilian uses.

This is actually part of why Congress or the President will “approve” arms sales - it’s not just national security (making sure we only give restricted tech to people we like) but to some extent foreign politics too. So it’s not like states totally ignore it when it happens, but yeah it’s generally not considered an act of war. This can vary and change over time of course: the Germans started unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI, and even today the Chinese throw a fit when we sell to Taiwan despite literally telling them we’d continue to do so over 50 years ago

There's an obvious difference between tapdancing on a blurry line and flagrantly, obviously and unambiguously running hundreds of meters on the other side of the line, which is what sending the bombers would be doing.

Yeah, sending the bombers, training the pilots, providing support services and maintenance and okaying their use, but denying any role in the outcome because "well WE didn't fly the planes" is patently silly.

If there are two guys having a shootout and you go over to one of them, hand him a gun, hand him the bullets, help him load the magazine, give him a few tips on marksmanship, and point out where the other guy is hiding, the other guy could pretty rightfully consider you an enemy combatant at that point.

But I dunno how many layers of obsfuscation are required before it becomes a wash.

"We sold the bombers and training to this other country, who then lent them to the belligerent country, and it just so happened that this other country has access to our satellite network to help with targeting, but we didn't tell 'em to do anything with that" is probably the furthest you can get without being obviously culpable.

And that's only because the intermediary country does have the option to just not do the thing you're hoping they do.

More comments

Individuals also tend to consider it to be very different in terms of moral responsibility, and culpability, when helping other people do things they want to do versus when you do something yourself. Individuals have agency and individual responsibility for the actions they choose to do.

Of course, that there is the rub. A common stumbling block in characterizing international affairs is the hyperagency versus hypoagency bias, where the a country's agency is inflated and anyone else's agency and responsibility is diminished / ignored.

People exclaiming loudly about how dangerous this is while also campaigning for increasing escalation in Ukraine against an actual nuclear adversary are not serious people.

I'm not that plugged in to the American commentary, so I might have missed something, but are there people doing that? I agree it sounds rather schizophrenic.

The pro-Ukraine, anti-Israel crowd is not small. It's the default position of the western left.

Pro- one country and anti- another is one thing, I thought we were talking about why it's dangerous to antagonize one country, but somehow safer to antagonize a bigger and better armed one.

The elites of the USA (who are often to be said to be captured by the left) are pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel, though. A substantial fringe of academics and student protestors doesn't change that.

I would say that this is correct, the left/liberal rhetoric is pro-Islamic mostly by accident (as a byproduct of the anti-racism and anti-discrimination ideas taken to a logical conclusion)

Democratic party elites are strongly pro-Islam and see Isreal as creation of western imperialism, hense thier opposition.

Republicans are generally anti-islam and see the Isrealis as natural allies who won thier war of independence fair and square.

Invading their neighbours three times, attacking Iran, backing all sorts of terrorist groups in Iran and then bombing for over a week seems to be the best way to convince them to get nukes. The best way to convince a country not to get nukes is to not be hyper aggressive towards them.

Yes, if Israel just let its neighbors invade them and did not respond to Iran's funding of Hezballah, Hamas, and the Houthis, surely Iran would realize that peaceful coexistence with Jews is the way forward.

For one of the most nuanced conflicts in the world, no one ever discusses it with nuance

It's hard to fault Isreal for blowing up its hostile neighbors. They're hostile after all.

But it's also hard to fault Isreal's neighbors for being mad about getting blown up.

It also feels pretty straightforward that clapping Iran will make them want nukes. They tried to toe the line and use the threat of making nukes as deterrence. Their bluff got called and they got smacked.

Next time they get a chance to achieve nuclear breakout (and there will be a next time), they won't make that mistake again.

It's hard to fault Isreal for blowing up its hostile neighbors. They're hostile after all.

But it's also hard to fault Isreal's neighbors for being mad about getting blown up.

Iran is not a neighbor of Israel, and Iran has been attacking Israel through proxies almost since the start of the Islamic Republic. Despite that, Israel supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program then. Iran attacked Israel twice directly last year. It's REALLY easy to fault them for being mad about getting blown up.

I'm not saying Iran isn't an idiot for being in this situation. Their hostility to Israel is a massive, profound, and decades long unforced error. Although hard to blame them about being mad about the Shah. But we've done worse to countries and now we're chill (Vietnam, Germany, Japan) so if they'd suck it up they'd be better off.

I'm talking about the situation at hand though. Iran and Israel have beef, is it stupid? Yes. But it is real, and Iran getting nukes is bad. And clapping on Iran makes them want nukes more, I think that's also bad.

backing all sorts of terrorist groups in Iran

can you give some examples?

the best way to convince them to get nukes

Iran was convinced already, that changes little

can you give sine examples?

I don't see how that's related to anything, but sure, here you go.

Citation needed

The best way to convince a country not to get nukes is to not be hyper aggressive towards them.

And to not have nukes yourselves. People warn that if Iran gets nukes, it will trigger a regional arms race, and Turkey, Saudi, etc will also have to get them, but that arms race already began when Israel acquired nukes and created an imbalance.

Except Israel's had Nukes for decades.

And Iran's supposedly been working towards a nuke for decades


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats