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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why does regular bombing campaigns leaving the country unable to create the necessary infrastructure not a viable path forward? I see no particular reason we can't just annihilate them.
You don't need the US to be directly involved for that. Israel can handle it all on their own.
"Annihilating" Iran, Carthage (or Circassia) style, isn't on the table.
That depends entirely on who's making the decisions, I think. I'm going to vote for people who are okay with destroying our enemies.
It would help to identify our enemies first. Iranians are friendlier to Western Civilization than Israelis.
No, the Muslims chanting death to America are not my friends, no matter how much you, I, or anyone else hate Jews.
Most Iranians are not religious and do not support the government, which sics foreign militias to oppress them. I speak Persian and have spent much time among them. Every couple of years there are massive riots, with thousands of deaths, as people fight back.
Even then, much of the Shia clergy opposes the regime; Khamenei isn't even a marja let alone the first among equals nor most popular religious leader within Iran itself. To concede a bit, at any rate they're friendlier than the Saudis and Emiratis, Shia are far more compatible and friendly with our world (but again, religiosity's similar to Czechia. Here's a survey giving 30% as Shia, only 40% as Muslim at all.)
Khatami relaxed that, already. Besides nowadays, everyone has a VPN. You can talk to plenty of Iranians right now, even with the attempted internet lock down, even if this isn't real. Personally, I'd only wish success to someone banning Disney, rap etc.
To react to your bailey, @The_Nybbler haven't many in this community opposed this government and arana imperii, ascribing modernity's ills to it?
That only makes the question of what do you think is going to happen, once the regime is overthrown, all the more important. Presumably it being able to hold on to power, despite the majority not supporting it, is a sign of a lack of unifying goals among the resistance.
It's hard to say as I don't know what the extent of the "stimulus" will be. I just want the regime to change, I don't know what kind of push is needed or where it will go.
Iran has significant brain drain as education levels are high and emigration's unrestricted. I see between 3 and 5 million emigrants for a population of
80 million2010 and ~90 million today. I'd guestimate emigration up a bit, just for Turkey (official numbers in the ...5 digits), which has big communities of Persian speaking shop keepers, lawyers, hostels, restaurants etc. then massive communities of Azeri Iranians, who receive expedited Turkish citizenship. (N.b. much of the Islamic Republic's leadership are Azeri. Azeri Turkish and Turkey Turkish are like British and American English. There are more Azeris in Iran than Azerbaijan.) Particularly in the last few years, international students have stopped going to Turkey, yet the universities catering to them have stronger enrollment than ever, all from Iran. In the case I knew intimately, 1 of 200 foreign students in a department were Iranian Azeris (the other was Persian.) Anyway, the commonality is that most people of means or ability leave.All things being equal, I'd expect some sort of secular military government, where the army puts down the IRGC. I'm not sure who'd lead it. Because Trump killed the liberal political movement, which spent its capital to push the nuclear deal through. Nowadays, there doesn't seem to be much of a political base, as the youth are depoliticized/have no faith in change. I believe people are less "political" than in Russia on average, where people will at least riff of crazy ideas and conspiracies. Many people try to build identities around pre-Islamic Iran, being totally Western or... But most just don't. There are interesting parties like the technocratic "Executives of Construction" with low electoral support.
Anyway, I'm not sure what precisely would cause the regime to change. I don't believe the current US government is terribly competent or able to nudge things along, but Israel's success is shocking and impressive. Perhaps something can come out of it. Continued airstrikes degrading the security state and ideological forces, but not state forces, could lead to the military or civilian-military forces overthrowing the current regime. However, I've seen a few strikes on army bases, but have no clue who/what was targeted. It could easily devolve into civil war or see the state continue, as is.
re: the liberal movement, Rouhani (though a cleric, with a Scottish PhD with a credible plagiarism claim) campaigned on rebuilding relations with the West, personal rights etc. which saw the civilian administration asserting itself against the IRGC. After that project was destroyed, the regime brought back the morality police etc. Although these days, you still see women walking around without a hijab in Shiraz, Tehran etc. Yet to some extent, the current president Pezeshkian is a moderate (fun fact, he proposed free Turkish education in Iran) relative to his opponent, but nowhere near as much as Rouhani or Khatami, still he (as well as many politicians) opposed the governments reactions to protestors at different points, calling the repression unconstitutional etc. (before backtracking...) He's had women vice presidents (besides many governors etc.), and even a Sunni!
Sometimes the US pays lipservice to the fact that there's a civilian government and state military with a clergy and militia on top, but doesn't actually focus its efforts fighting the ruling clergy.
Well, my first instinct is to chastise you for your recklessness, but if I'm being honest this is not much different than how I feel about Europe, so fair enough, especially if you have ties to the place.
No total regime collapse? No neighboring countries swooping in to setup a puppet state? No civil war? No refugee wave?
Iran was able to build many impressive things in-house, so I don't doubt there are many educated people there, but I distinctly remember people telling me the same thing about Syria, to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme.
That sounds like the good ending, but I have my doubts. "Khamenei is a religious fanatic who hates us for irrational religious reasons, and so cannot be reasoned with" is a common argument, but I can't help but notice that Putin is secular, Hussein was secular, Gaddafi was secular, Assad was secular, and none of them had better luck being seen as rational people to be reasoned with. So unless it's possible to impose a puppet regime of the US and/or Israel, I don't think a secular military government will be accepted by them any more than the theocratic one is, and so, we'll see a descent into chaos. Hope I'm wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link