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 -
(1) Three dead American servicemen confirmed by Centcom
(2) A disinformation war is happening in regards to whether a school in Iran was hit, and if it were hit, whether its destruction was caused by Iran, Israel, or America. 100+ Iranian girls were killed.
(3a) It isn’t clear why negotiations failed with Iran. A day before the attack, the designated Omani mediator asserted that Iran conceded fully on enrichment and nuclear weapons: “The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb,” said Albusaidi, describing the understanding as “something completely new” compared to the previous nuclear deal negotiated under former US President Barack Obama. He said the negotiations have produced an agreement on “zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling it a breakthrough that makes the enrichment argument “less relevant.” On existing stockpiles inside Iran, Albusaidi said that “there is agreement now that this will be down-blended to the lowest-level possible … and converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.”
(3b) It appears that Witkoff and Kushner were instrumental in the decision to strike Iran: ”Witkoff and Jared Kushner, U.S. officials said. They told him the talks had gone badly: Tehran wasn’t willing to end its nuclear enrichment or dismantle its missile program, the officials said. That further confirmed for Trump that he had one option left, the officials said. The U.S. also had intelligence that Iran considered attacking American targets before Trump authorized strikes, a senior administration official said, adding a sense of urgency to the president’s decision. U.S. casualties and damage to American interests would be higher unless the U.S. moved first, the senior official said.”
According to the Washington Post it was also a sudden burst of last-minute Saudi support:
“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack, despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, the four people said.”
After the strikes last year, attacks on proxies, the mass protests, the calculation by Iran’s enemies (principally Saudi Arabia and Israel) seems to have been that this is as weak as they’ll ever be, so might as well attack now. Unfortunately, that they’re as weak as they’ll ever be doesn’t mean they’re weak enough to be overthrown.
Once Iranian AA defense is disabled - from there US and Israel can afford to kill officials until only those willing to unconditionally surrender are left. It may take months or years. But it will be quite cheap and affordable. And if USA and Israel have functioning brains - will move the war to drones.
An unconditional surrender by the Iranians isn't a US victory, given the (quite correct and bipartisan) US preference for the status quo over the typical result of an unconditional surrender, which would be the US occupying Iran.
The win condition for the US is the formation of a government in Iran
Something which is notoriously hard to do with punitive bombing alone.
I think Netanyahu would consider a failed state in Iran a win for Israel. But it doesn't look like a win for the US or the US's local allies - failed states are bad neighbours and their oil and gas industry is uninvestable.
An unconditional surrender results in formation of a government in Iran with a few extra steps -- a period of occupation, someone translates the Japanese constitution into Farsi, we find some reasonably reliable Iranians to take over. Could fail of course, but the US has done it before.
The whole point I was making is that the US (and on this point, exceptionally, the US is united) has no interest in occupying Iran. All important factions in the US would prefer leaving the status quo in place to a US occupation. We can argue about whether the US is making a mistake here, but this is closer to "the utility function isn't up for debate" than "let's get a bunch of experts in post-mullahocracy occupation and reconstruction to discuss how likely it is to produce a good outcome" - not least because the relevant body of expertise doesn't exist.
Sure, the US doesn't want to occupy. But unconditional surrender from a power capable of that (which may not exist) would lead to the more desirable condition (acquiescent self-rule) through the undesirable one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s hard to picture exactly what a failed state in Iran looks like. Certainly it doesn’t look like Libya, Iraq or Syria.
Why? Firstly, the specific dynamics of Sunni sectarianism that drove conflict in Syria and Iraq don’t exist. Iraq is not ethnically homogenous but it is mostly Shia. Secondly, the longstanding, centuries old tribal dynamics of postwar / civil war Libya also don’t apply.
There are ‘factions’ in Iran. There are the Azeris. There are the Kurds (although more assimilated and pacified, even compared to their neighbors). There is a small Sunni minority. There are some Afghan refugees, although many have been returned recently. It has been a relatively contiguous polity for a very long time, unlike much of the Levant.
What does “failed state” Iran look like? Kurdish and Azeri militias fighting each other in the ruins of Tehran? Bourgeois university professors squaring off against remnants of the IRGC? It all seems pretty unlikely.
The Kurds are no more pacified that the rest of the population - i.e. they won't stay pacified if the regime collapses, unless the new regime incorporates or crushes them. As with Syria, any likely failed state scenario includes either a Kurdish statelet (de facto independent, not internationally recognised, but probably west-friendly in practice) or Turkish military intervention to prevent one forming, or both (as happened in Syria). Israel appears to be explicitly encouraging Kurdish separatists to take up arms against the weakened regime.
In terms of Iranian domestic politics, Iranian Kurds are a key part of the Khatami/Rouhani reform faction in the mullahocracy. They don't get on with the hardliners (because of religious differences) or with the Pahlavite resistance (because of Persian nationalism).
(Mostly the same people as the Kurds, who are much more religiously diverse than ethnic-Persian Iranians)
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