site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   651 thread views

Transnational Thursday for February 26, 2026

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How the AP decided to describe joint US–Israeli strikes on Iran, and Iran’s retaliation, as a war

The Associated Press is using the word “war” to refer to the joint U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran, and Iran’s retaliation. This reflects the scope and intensity of the fighting.

What does the AP consider?

The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: “A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,” or “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.”

Even though none of the countries have officially declared war, the attacks by the United States and Israel, combined with Iran’s retaliation, meet those criteria. The decision by the Trump administration and Israeli leaders to attack and the subsequent destruction and casualties are enough to call the actions, and Iran’s response, a war. Trump himself has used the word war to describe the conflict.

Why does it matter?

It’s important to use the correct language to describe military action between sovereign nations.

Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict starts but doesn’t escalate. Using “war” to describe those situations could diminish the word’s importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance.

What are previous examples of conflicts where the AP issued guidance to use the word ‘war’?

The AP provided guidance on the attacks on Iran by Israel in June 2025, using the term “war” to describe the conflict in the days after the initial attacks and Iran’s retaliation. The war lasted 12 days, and Israeli and American strikes greatly weakened Iran’s air defenses, military leadership and nuclear program.

The AP also began using the term “war” to describe the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and between Israel and Hamas in the days and weeks after fighting began.

In those cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict.

Could the guidance change?

Decisions on how AP uses the term “war” happen in real time. AP’s news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary.

At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war.

I can't help but think none of what we're seeing now would have happened if not for October 7 attacks. If that didn't happen, Hamas would still be in full force and capacity in Gaza, and so would be Hezbollah. If that were the case, Israel might not dare to attack Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities, fearing retribution from Hamas and Hezbollah - which now are sunk costs, as Israel already was forced to wage the war, endure the consequences and emerge victorious. It would also not stimulate the huge wave of antisemitism in the West, exposing the antisemitic nature of the woke left. That cost Democrats up to a million Jewish votes. Who knows, maybe other votes too - enough that without that happening, Harris might have even won. And then of course the possibility of any US action against Iran would be out of the question. But even if Harris did not win, for Trump would be much harder to justify attacking Iran without clear evidence of any "hot" action from their side - if Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. were quiet, how could the "peacemaker" Trump initiate the war? Without Israel & US strikes, the protestors probably would not feel as emboldened as they did recently, and would not initiate the wave of protests that triggered the current situation. Thus, Iranians would be quietly and secretly building the bomb, and Trump would conduct endless "talks" - like he is doing now with Russia - without and result. Instead, a lot of their government are now dead, and those who alive may soon face the wrath of the revolutionary mobs.

Seems the US has lost a MQ-4C Triton drone near Iran. The Triton isn't a normal surveillance drone, it's a gigantic long range spy drone, $150 million each.

Apparently they made a drone that large and didn't give it any electronic warfare capability whatsoever, it's baffling. The U-2 flew higher, faster and was better protected.

I can't understand the mindset of making such a large drone, in such small numbers and not giving it any defences. S-300s were around in the 1980s, it's not like 'just fly moderately high' is a sufficient defence.

No idea about that particular drone, but there sure is a lot of buzz around Iran right now. Trump has said he's "not happy" with Iran, and betting markets have shown a huge spike in the odds that the US strikes Iran by the end of February. As in, by tomorrow.

The markets were right.

Well you got that right... TBH there was a lot of foreshadowing.

I can't understand the mindset of making such a large drone, in such small numbers and not giving it any defences. S-300s were around in the 1980s, it's not like 'just fly moderately high' is a sufficient defence.

Being in defense, the answer is greed. Only tangentially related, but the number of recent drone warfare calls I have been in is huge. The government keeps asking for disposable/attritable drones like Ukraine has, just less hobbled together. Everyone and their monkey offers up their drone for this. The kicker? The cheapest one was like 25k per drone. It made me felt like I was screaming into the void. So I bet the 150 Mil spy drone was given no defense tech because that's more expensive and it wasn't in the RFP.

I'm assuming this type was meant to be operated in the airspace of enemies without efficient anti-aircraft defenses.

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