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 -
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Yes
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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 breakfastthe 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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
"Kamala Harris is for they/them. Donald Trump is for you."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
Feel free to make money on polymarket.
That’s too anonymous; I’m opening myself to embarrassment if I’m wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, everybody hates Iran. Trump won't lose the midterms over this unless he does something dumb like trying to invade by ground.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link