site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25897 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026

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.

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced today he was resigning over the war in Iran.

President Trump,

After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Directory of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today.

I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.

....

Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that you should strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make that mistake again.

What's most significant is that Kent is not a Marjorie Taylor-Green or a Thomas Massie. Kent served in the U.S Special Forces and in eleven combat tours, mostly Iraq, and then retired an became a paramilitary officer with the CIA. His wife was killed in Syria. Kent had a very public feud with the Nick Fuentes faction of America First which was started by Kent's public denunciation of Fuentes.

Kent was clearly amenable to an aspirational "middle ground" with respect to the tenuous America First/Israel Alliance, which is why he was targeted by the Groypers in the first place. Nobody can accuse him of hiding some deep-seeded Jew hatred because of his long and recent history of supporting Israel, this seems to be a genuine defection. This defection is highly significant and the first time a high-ranking official has described any of these conflicts in these terms.

There may be more shoes to drop/more resignations. My own criticism of Kent's resignation is that he tries to absolve Trump of blame, when Trump is neck-deep in all of this.

This resignation comes as the same day the Guardian reports that a UK security adviser present at US-Iran talks believed a deal was within reach immediately before the US/Israeli strikes on Iran.

Iran had also made an offer of what the mediators described as an economic bonanza, with the US being given the chance to participate in a future civil nuclear programme.

In return, nearly 80% of the economic sanctions on Iran would have been lifted, including assets frozen in Qatar, a demand Iran made in the 2025 talks.

The Oman mediator believed the offer of zero stockpiling of highly enriched uranium was a breakthrough that meant an agreement was within reach.

Accounts differ on whether Kushner left the talks giving the impression Trump would welcome what had been agreed, or that the US negotiators knew it would take something massive to persuade Trump that war was not the best option.

One diplomat with knowledge of the talks said: “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”

The Guardian’s report that Powell was in the room during the talks was cited in parliament on Tuesday by Liz Saville Roberts, an MP for the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru party, during an update by Britain’s foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper.

“It appears diplomatic options were still viable and there was no evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Saville Roberts told Cooper.

“Does she therefore believe a negotiated path between Iran and the US was still possible at that time and, if so, surely that means that the initial US and Israeli strikes were premature and illegal?”

Cooper responded: “The UK did provide support for negotiations and diplomatic processes around the nuclear discussions.

“We did think that was an important track and we did want it to continue. That is one of the reasons for the position we took on the initial US strikes that took place.”

Look, I think we can all agree that this open letter about nation-state disinformation is completely credible until 50 more intelligence experts sign it.

But more seriously, why can't this person just read too much 4chan?

I don’t know enough about the guy to know if he is doing this for principled reasons, but this makes me confident that the war is going very badly and that the administration is either going to capitulate, or be forced to endure a long and costly affair. In either case it’s good for this individuals long term career to distance himself from the whole affair. Getting ahead and blaming Israel is also smart: if the conflict goes poorly blaming Israel is a political no brainer for any possible democrat and maybe even (with greater difficulty due to the evangelicals in the coalition) for a republican.

Getting ahead and blaming Israel is also smart

Yup. Few people among MAGA who are against the war are willing to admit that Trump is personally enthusiastic about it. If POTUS says no, there's nothing the Israeli lobby can do to force his hand.

If POTUS says no, there's nothing the Israeli lobby can do to force his hand.

Except coach helpful idiots in the administration extensively to nudge Trump into saying "yes", which worked!

https://archive.ph/YLlgF

this makes me confident that the war is going very badly

A US war going "very badly" with a power like Iran looks like losing a carrier, or an air wing, or multiple surface ships. All of which could still potentially happen (surface ships are pretty vulnerable to mines in particular).

Remember that the US has had several ships severely damaged in past operations in the Gulf (USS Samuel B. Roberts, USS Princeton, USS Stark) and lost a number of aircraft in the Persian Gulf War. Those sorts of losses are table stakes for a big war like this and the fact that the US hasn't seemed to lose a single aircraft to Iranian fire indicates that the war is going better from a purely military point of view than e.g. the Persian Gulf war.

Does anyone have a place where people in favor of this war are discussing it? I’m struggling to find anybody who genuinely thinks it’s a good idea.

Much of my friend circle are Iranian, largely still enthusiastic but they've stopped posting "thank you Trump" every day. (I am mindfucked by their pro-Shah and pro-Israeli posts, which came out of left field after knowing them for ages.) But they don't discuss.

I haven't really seen one, because defending the Trump administration's actions here requires a lot of guesswork as to their ultimate goals. There's a lot of "they could" or "they might" or "maybe they will" hedging involved. Trump and Hegseth have not communicated a clear plan to the public, so rooting for its success means assuming there are more moves coming that will deliver success.

I pray nightly that such a plan does exist and will succeed. The better outcome by far for my family at home and abroad will be if this results in the transition from an evil isolated clerical Iranian state to a modern open Iranian state that can participate in the global economy. Even better: 52nd state, after Venezuela won 51st in the WBC.

But prayer isn't much of a strategy, and it's definitely a pretty poor argument, so where you see open debate at all you're seeing a lot of "don't be a Negadelphian" type discourse or flameouts from pro-war commenters.

I think there are likely a bunch of us that are just casually in favour or on the fence. (While I'm worried about the fallout, I am always going to tilt in the direction of good old Team America deposing dictators.) Probably not too many people who are rabidly gung-ho about the whole thing and willing to argue it extensively, so they're going to lose out in wordcount to our local antisemites who will take any excuse to post multipage slop essays about the joooooooz. It's a shame, but the ideals of free speech do require a little bit of sacrifice.

Zionist Twitter. Asmongold streams.

I mean support is still reasonably broad. I saw stats suggesting somewhere in the range of 80-85 percent of Republicans are down.

Most of the internet continues to have an anti-Trump/Republican bias that doesn't change. So you'd expect to have trouble with pro-war discourse.

Witch havens like here are stuffed with people with deeply unconventionally views (die hard anti-intervention folks and anti-jew posters for one) and are not representative of the general Republican field.

I'm personally for the war and found the experience supporting it here to be not very rewarding, I imagine plenty of others have similar thoughts.

I for one would be quite interested in why you support the war. The information environment is bad right now, so I value getting perspectives which disagree from my own that I am quite confident aren't from a bot.

There are several justifications for this war that strike me as plausible, but I have no idea which ones (if any) are load-bearing among supporters e.g.

  1. Iran was getting quite close to nukes, and negotiations were not working.
  2. Iran killed a lot of protestors recently, and the delay in military action was just because it takes time to get carrier groups across the planet.
  3. We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they would be easy (or even "actually, we still think it'll be easy").
  4. Iran has been a destabilizing factor across the middle east for decades, and we'd have to deal with it eventually, and now is a better time than most because [reasons]
  5. We are allied with Israel, and Israel attacked Iran, therefore we had to enter alongside them in order to maintain the alliance.
  6. Something else entirely.

Are any of these close?

Personally, as a luke-warm supporter of the war, nos. 2-4 resonate with me, with a side-dish of "Israel probably told us their intelligence had penetrated the IRI governance and internal security structure enough to be able to achieve meaningful attrition/disorganization of regime-loyal elements."

Like, apparently things are so crazy that Mossad agents are calling individual district commanders of the Basij and warning them to stand down or get droned.

I'm in favor of this war with Iran.

I think #1-4 are great reasons. Additionally I would add setting the precedent that if you even think about using development of nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip we'll kick your ass.

Also it's generally good if we remind the world that we still have the will and ability to beat the absolute shit out of regimes that are annoying.

What would you expect to see, looking back from 2030, in worlds where the war went well and accomplished what you were hoping it would? What would instead make you think the war was a mistake, in retrospect?

Obviously on the flip side of that, the modal "no war, and it went badly" world probably looks to me like "Iran got nukes, and used them".

I don't think the outcome determines whether or not the action taken today means it's a mistake or not.

But I get the spirit of the question.

Went well: Iran has a revolution and re-establishes a stable constitutional monarchy.

Less well: becomes a bombed out basket case like Syria and can't really threaten anyone geopolitically and is only a drain on our adversaries if they want to help at all.

Bad: we get bored or lose our nerve and pull out and the Muslim theocrats re-affirm control and get nukes.

There are several justifications for this war that strike me as plausible, but I have no idea which ones (if any) are load-bearing among supporters e.g.

"Support" is a strong word. I've not sworn my life and honor to the Plannisters, but I've certainly learned not to bet against them. There's a lot of room for potential upside here, between positioning and maneuvering against China, the Middle East, knocking out a Russian ally, scaring and embarrassing our "allies", testing out next-gen combat, the fact that Iran just generally totally fucking sucks and has been calling for the death of my people for half a century, etc. It's not stuff I was chomping at the bit for, but I can see the logic, but it costs me little to wait and see if the administration can bring it home. If they can, it would be a hell of a coup, a lightsaber to a Gordian knot.

And maybe they can't. But frankly, there isn't a single politician in America I'd give better odds to than Donald Trump.

And on a more cold, personal level: I've been saying for decades that we should have just flattened every government building in Afghanistan and littered the country with pamphlets in every goat-herder language known to our anthropologists saying "If your government still offends us, we're just going to come back and do it again and again, so regularly you can plant your crops by the sight of our bombers smiting you. Repent or die. - Sincerely, the Fist of God (AKA: America)."

So I'm kind of curious to test the "can't do Islamic regime change by air power" hypothesis.

Yes some combination of those, to expand on a few reasons to go about this (not that I believe in all of them):

-The expression of the power of the United States has been inappropriately curtailed for too long, the most straightforward example of this is the Russian invasion of Ukraine which likely only happened because of the Biden administrations weakness. Showing off reaffirms the U.S.'s superpower status and likely prevents all kinds of bad outcomes. China's fans like to make claims but realistically every military in the world is shitting their pants looking at this and Venezuela. Later losing for political reasons will not change this. The whole world benefits from U.S. lead global stability and this affirms our capacity.

-Israel can probably be considered something of an albatross but it is a key ally, and was one when we needed it. We shouldn't abandon them. Additionally coordinating with Israel and the other countries in the area is more or less bringing everyone in the region into the U.S.'s sphere of influence. Unclear if this will be durable once Iran and proxies are gone, but it is a thing, and the world is probably better off if we transform the religious regimes into klepto-authoritarian ones. This also is a boon against China, as Venezuela was.

-Oil (long term stability, not short term obviously).

-Morals. The death of the protestors and general oppression is not good. Anyone who thinks they would stop the Nazis but isn't stopping Iran needs to be asking themselves hard questions. And - while it is deeply tied to his ego (b/c ignoring threats), people who know Trump will seriously and probably correctly point out that killing the protestors made him mad and is a big part of what made him pull the trigger. Lots of people treat Trump like a character and not an actual person, but he has been consistent in this, and he is of a generation that that was deeply impacted by the hostage crisis.

-We've been (essentially) at war with Iran for decades, to some extent increasingly. Asymmetric options like terrorism, cyberattacks, drones are only going to be increasing in danger. The country has threatened to kill our president. People with intelligence backgrounds I know have frequently emphasized Iran as one of the biggest threats, and people who played in the sandbox have a lot of problems with them. You don't let someone keep punching you indefinitely, especially if they are probing for the right spot for David to kill Goliath.

-Nukes. Absolutely fucking not. Regardless of how close they were in reality their response to being attacked makes it pretty clear that Iran actually getting nuclear weapons would represent an existential threat to global stability. People emphasize closeness but that isn't the right question, when can we actually stop them is the right question, how close is just political justification.

-Speaking of when is the right time, it's pretty likely now. The regime is going through a lot of political and economic turmoil and waiting might have panned out, but if they survive the clearly increasing missile and drone capacity pretty readily substitutes for Nukes in a MAD scenario (at least for the global economy). If our intervention ends out being bad, then that's evidence waiting while they get stronger would have been even worse.

Importantly how real the threat of the last two is is not going to be something people will actually be able to know unless a credible leak happens, and likely only in the affirmative.

Ultimately this is pretty likely to be a "bad idea" in the sense it is going to be a shit show, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary to do the hard thing.

In the nicest possible way, a lot of these justifications seem deeply hypocritical and self-serving.

The whole world benefits from U.S. lead global stability and this affirms our capacity.

I am glad to be told this by my benevolent overlord.

Oil (long term stability, not short term obviously).

America, unlike Iran, famously never uses its dominance of key global markets to get its way /s

The country has threatened to kill our president.

You have killed their president! And let us not forget that America created the Taliban, supports Kurdish rebels, and almost certainly aids and abets Mossad campaigns of sabotage and assassination in Iran. There is no possible way that America can present itself as a principled objector to asymmetric warfare.

Iran actually getting nuclear weapons would represent an existential threat to global stability

It's weird how unstable American global stability feels. More to the point, this is precisely the kind of behaviour that spurs people to make nukes. It's now absolutely undeniable that any country who doesn't wish their cities razed and their leaders black-bagged when America feels like it, needs nukes that aren't controlled by America. Even the UK Labour party now supports getting a new nuclear deterrent that's not American-controlled. These people were unilateral abolitionists 5 years ago! America eying European and Canadian territory and licking their lips doesn't help even slightly.

If our intervention ends out being bad, then that's evidence waiting while they get stronger would have been even worse.

'If this goes badly, that makes it even more important to do it!' That's a Kafka trap.

The moral argument I give you, but taking that seriously seems to demand that:

  1. America invades every country that represses its citizens and slaughters protestors. Lots of candidates there, starting with the Saudis and quite possibly including Israel. I don't get the feeling that you, America, or the rest of the world actually wants this.
  2. America's interventions actually make these people's lives better in ways that they appreciate. Not only is this kind of nation-building very much against Trump's stated intentions, but I frankly don't see how you get there from here.

'If this goes badly, that makes it even more important to do it!' That's a Kafka trap.

These are talking points not fully fleshed out arguments, but I find the quality of discussion on this latest conflict to be far below what I usually see here.

Example: "Rubio said Israel dragged us into this war." No. Just no.

And as to this specific point, I should not need to write a full length essay in order for you to be able to connect the dots here. It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."

I understand that a lot of people are using this conflict to funnel anti-Trump, American, and Jew feelings, but a lot of people are actively cheering for America to lose and to support Iran, a country that is recently accused of killing tens of thousands of its own population and actively, joyfully supports global terrorism.

Likewise the U.S. isn't an amazing hegemon, but people cheering for China or Russia to take over? Jesus Christ.

Thing is, you are fundamentally a patriotic American at your core and you know in your heart that yours is the best country even if it's not perfect. As you should! Moderate patriotism is a virtue. But it means you cannot genuinely empathise with people like me who are looking at the behaviour of America and Americans right now and getting really creeped out.

My history of posts on this site is available for you to make up your own mind, but 10 years ago I would have classed myself as definitely pro-American. The Americans weren't always perfect, there was Iraq, they had the usual imperial tendency to have difficulty distinguishing their personal interests from the interests of the world, but they did their best and there were much worse people out there.

I got rather more dubious about America's social and economic dominance once wokeness and especially BLM came in: race relations in the UK were never perfect but I didn't like watching them become a carbon-copy of America's, right up to and including the 'hands up, don't shoot' slogan when police in the UK don't have guns. Trump and the American Right were fighting hard though, and things did indeed turn the corner, and I was very pleased to see it. Again, please read my posting history.

I went off Israel in a big way after Oct 7 when the biggest contingent of pro-Israelis on this site started just outright saying, 'look, it's time to exterminate the Palestinians now'. I don't want to huff and puff on the internet, and I don't like the Palestinians or Hamas either, but I was genuinely shocked at the number of people who seemed to be A-OK with campaigns of racial extermination as long as it was their guys doing the exterminating.

Likewise, a few months ago, when Trump suddenly decided that he wanted Greenland, the sovereign territory of an ally and perhaps the least woke country in Western Europe, I was horrified to see a big contingent of Americans on this site with massive grins on their faces saying, "Yeah! Fuck those smug Europeans! Sorry boys, if you didn't want us to stomp on your balls you should have grown some bigger ones!" Even from posters I respect, often the response was essentially, "Look, you've been weak and disrespectful, and if my party wants to stomp on your balls then you basically deserve it."

Ultimately your post seems to me to be saying that America deserves to subjugate the world forever, and if anyone decides they don't like it or they'd at least like to try being stamped on by a different boot, then that makes them an enemy and a threat to oh-so-benevolent American hegemony which needs to be dealt with. "The whole world benefits from U.S. lead global stability and this affirms our capacity," you say happily. Have you asked the world? In general, I think your position contains a serious Kafka trap where any serious attempt to defy American authority or defend against American hostility (like preparing nuclear weapons that could actually defend against an American attack, or seeking good relations with other powerful nations, or engaging in proxy economic or military activity, the last of which I do not endorse) is automatic proof of guilt indicating the need to subjugate or raze. Strong 'if you didn't resist, I wouldn't have to hurt you' vibes.

I feel confident saying that America could and would black-bag my democratically-elected prat Prime Minister if they felt like it and the response from the aforementioned contingent would be the same as it was to Gaza, Denmark and Iran. They, and the US government, seem to feel that the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't that they killed vast numbers of innocent people and turned whole nations into warlord-infested torture deserts for nothing, but that America was mildly inconvenienced while doing so.

TLDR: Apologies for being a little heated. I think our positions and priors are too different for us to viscerally appreciate each others' positions, but

a lot of people are actively cheering for America to lose and to support Iran, a country that is recently accused of killing tens of thousands of its own population and actively, joyfully supports global terrorism.

Likewise the U.S. isn't an amazing hegemon, but people cheering for China or Russia to take over?

please consider what it might say about America's recent behaviour if it causes sensible people feel even an ounce of warmth towards Iran (whose government is as awful as you say). Likewise, that the People's Republic of China is looking sensible and level-headed. I hope that this is America's 'wolf warrior' moment and the bloodlust will recede and America will realise that other people's opinions matter at least a little bit and retrench, but I'm not confident.

I went off Israel in a big way after Oct 7 when the biggest contingent of pro-Israelis on this site started just outright saying, 'look, it's time to exterminate the Palestinians now'

This did not happen, I was there.

More comments

Trump suddenly decided that he wanted Greenland, the sovereign territory of an ally

This situation is a bit more nuanced than that, I think. Indulge me, for just a second, if you would.

I'm not going to argue that Trump's rhetoric on this has been good (in fact, possibly it's been counterproductive) in part because fact-checking everything he's ever said would be extremely tedious, but I am given to understand that he ruled out actually attacking and seizing Greenland at some point. Great. But it seems pretty clear to me that he didn't wake up one morning and decide "ooh I want Greenland" for no reason.

The truth is that the US has wanted to acquire Greenland for a long time (the US has kicked the idea around since the mid-1800s). During World War 2, the US actually invaded Greenland, actually took control of the island, and then when Denmark asked the United States to leave after the war was over, we refused, the US being, apparently, convinced that Greenland was important to its security heading into the Cold War. The way NATO fell together smoothed things over, and the US continued to maintain bases there (although it still kicked around the idea of purchasing the island).

So we found a tenable status quo that rested on cooperation. What could have changed since the Cold War to make the US interested in owning Greenland again?

The answer is that in 2008 Greenland held a referendum on self-governance, which Denmark agreed to honor. A 2009 law guaranteed Greenland the right to leave altogether, if they so chose, and in fact that's the direction Greenland is currently headed in.

Now, personally, I agree with this course of action by Denmark, as I am generally for lower levels of self-governance. (Also, Denmark seems to have treated the natives pretty badly, apparently running an illegal and unethical contraception campaign until fairly recently with the goal of reducing their population.)

But geopolitically if there's any chance that Greenland actually leaves Denmark, it throws into question the currently existing security arrangement! Imagine if Poland agreed to let Suwalki hold an independence referendum: maybe this is a good thing on principle, but the Baltic states would go nuts and understandably so. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a "jerk move" necessarily but if access to Greenland is actually important for US/NATO security and Greenland wants to leave Denmark, it's pretty sensible for the US to want to acquire Greenland.

I think the best solution here for all parties is probably a Compact of Free Association between Greenland and the United States, and to the degree that Trump's rhetoric has made that less likely, I am inclined to think it is bad, and to the degree that Trump's rhetoric has made it more likely, maybe it's actually good.

Likewise, a few months ago, when Trump suddenly decided that he wanted Greenland, the sovereign territory of an ally and perhaps the least woke country in Western Europe

But see this attitude is part of the problem. Trump's interest in Greenland is not irrational or sudden. It's strictly transactional. It could be arranged easily. There is no special reason why Denmark has to have it, it doesn't form a core part of the Danish identity or state. It's some land they technically own. And instead of being willing to deal at all or even producing good reasons why the deal should not be done, everyone says, "it's our sovereign territory!" Well, yeah, can we do a deal about it? "It's ours! Not yours! You can't have it!"

There has been a total refusal to understand America's motivations as anything except some kind of ur-bully instinct. Now in the spirit of good will and good discussion, sure, I can admit that Trump's tone becomes hostile and threatening. But this is only because Denmark and Europe refuse to negotiate in the first place. Refuse to even consider it. What threat does it pose to Denmark to make a deal? It's their "sovereign territory"? That's not a good reason actually, that's declaring a priori some kind of status quo as an inviolable metaphysical truth. It doesn't actually violate the dignity of the Danish people to propose swapping some land. It's a kind of TDS, of a kind with when Trump warned the Germans of their dependence on Russian gas and they laughed at him.

Europe wants to act as though America is totally irrational but it doesn't seem as though Europe is rational either. This is why, when you say, "please consider what it might say about America's recent behavior," nobody is interested. People support a theocratic regime over Trump because they think Trump is mean? They want Iran to win and cripple the global energy market so Trump suffers a loss? That's not rational. It's not the product of a rational mind. Irrational people are not going to prod us to introspect, except maybe to consider if we need to change our behavior to avoid their erratic behavior.

More comments

Okay I think I understand a little bit more about where you are coming from and importantly I think the way you wrote makes me thing you are more worried and fearful than certain which means I do think we can talk, especially because I don't think we are as far apart as you fear.

I think everyone needs to keep two things in mind:

-Trump (and Western values) have been the recipient of an immense smear campaign for years and years. This is coming from inside the house in the form of the media, academics and so on and outside the house as a specific way used by the enemies of the West (including Iran and Russia) to destabilize us. It works. If you are still posting here you are probably heterodox and free thinking and resistant to these tactics but being buried under lies, exaggeration, misrepresentation and fear mongering for decades is going to stick at least a little bit.

-The tremendous amount of recent success of American/Western culture recently has allowed us to have (as embarrassing as it is to say it) a children's view policy and politics. Of course importing an endless stream of foreigners is going to change a country. No, it's ridiculous that 6 dead servicemen is going be painted as a reason that the war should end. I've seen more dead people today at my day job.

Likewise dealing with Iran is going to suck but it's going to happen at some point. Yes something was always going to happen to fracture US/Euro alliance if they continued using the U.S. as a pay pig. The anti-Trump memeplex creates a really potent way for people to dismiss and ignore hard problems and conversations.

Two address two of your specifics: Greenland. We know how Trump talks and negotiates now, he's been around for years. It helps Euro politicians if they handle it in the way they did, but it's important for the free thinking public to recognize what Trump is and how he works and how their politicians are trying to use that.

America isn't a perfect hegemon, but it's so comically more in line with Western values that people reaching for China and Russia really need to stop and think about how much exaggeration is happening. People are out there saying that U.S. is worse than Iran because of Pretti. This is just not reality. Being pissed by Trump's low class presentation style doesn't justify this much of divorce from reality.

More comments

"when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons."

Kind of a big assumption here. Are you confident that Iran, if they developed both nuclear weapons and some form of nuclear triad to be enable to credibly threaten retaliation against a first-strike, would then immediately use these new nukes to commit suicide by triggering MAD?

North Korea talks an absurd amount of shit, has nukes, and has never used them. India and Pakistan enjoy a little slap & tickle now and again and yet don't go nuclear.

You really, actually, genuinely think that the people in charge of Iran, and all the people who are involved in the functioning of a nuclear triad/delivery systems/C&C/etc are all down to, what, land a few nukes on Israeli soil (best case) and then get promptly glassed by H bombs? That seems realistic to you?

Iran is significantly more likely to intentionally try and start a global nuclear than the other powers - they are a religious theocracy that acts on religious impulses and is engaged in low tempo warfare (through proxies if nothing else).

That's not the problem though.

Imagine Iran arms itself and then takes control of Hormuz and says "don't intervene" with a nuclear backstop, or attacks Israel (or anyone else in the region). Or does what it is doing right now, with a stark reduction in response options because they say they'll nuke Riyadh if displeased. Temperamentally the Iranian regime is far more likely to engage in is dysregulated instability inducing activity than most regimes because of historical and religious factors. Add nukes into the mix and things get way worse.

What if they finish going through economic instability, Balkanize, and then one of the successor states sells to the highest bidder or loses track of it?

Hell, what if they just give to a proxy group or some other terrorist organization.

You can't model Iran like other powers, a large portion of the state believes what they are saying on the religious front. North Korea is trying to semi-quietly maintain its own existence. India is a real country with real country interests. Pakistan is complicated, but looks nothing like Iran.

More comments

It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."

Alternatively, it's seeing a big fortress, choosing to attack it directly from the front, taking heavy casualties, failing to take the fortress and then going "Whew, we sure took heavy casualties but if we had waited longer for them to improve their defenses then we would have lost even harder" while failing to consider the possibility of attacking from a less defensible angle or even avoiding the fortress entirely.

Iran is an aggressor and has been for decades, they are very upfront and explicit about some aspects of it, and other aspects are very well understood by those paying attention (like cyberattacks, proxies).

This is not North Korea that utilizes some strategic ambiguity for face saving purposes.

Iran and its proxies have gotten very good at using gaps in Western cultural thinking to engage in violence without triggering an immune response.

Ultimately this is a defensive war and needs to be modeled as such - Iran is an attacker who is attacking now, was attacking previously, and stated they will attack again in the future.

... man, why can't the executive just say that. If this is a considered decision to embroil ourselves in a shitshow because the alternative is worse, that's understandable. What worries me is when the Trump admin doesn't show signs of awareness that it's going to be a shitshow.

Or maybe Trump posted something coherently explaining the reasoning on Truth Social and I just missed it.

I mean have you seen this admin communicate with the public, like in general?

The usual reasons.

"We are doing this now because someone has to do it eventually and I'm left holding the bag and not a coward." Not inspiring.

"Personally, I hate watching civilians die." Not his vibe - and a huge leverage point with the school bombing.

"Complicated rambling about missile and drone production rates vs. interceptor costs" ...not going to work.

A different president might be able to convey the meaning without the specifics but Trump is not that guy, and critically the media and social environment is so relentlessly criticizing that he isn't incentivized in any way to try.

The vast majority of the military and the executive are not stupid, you see plenty of people saying "wow why did they do this when they don't have a plan for Hormuz" of course they have a plan. It's not a good one because there aren't any good plans, and doing nothing was a plan with risks of its own. The public does not tolerate those kinds of discussions though.

"We are doing this now because someone has to do it eventually and I'm left holding the bag and not a coward." Not inspiring.

I find this pretty inspiring, to be honest.

I think society would be better served with more people having a positive reaction to "we do this because it is hard and necessary, so that people in the future do not suffer."

We do not live in that society.

More comments

This felt like what the justification for the Afghan withdrawal was and I loved it. I agree it's inspiring.

I'd think it was a good idea, if we were going to secure access to Iranian oil and cut off Chinese access. My view is that we might be (but aren't definitely) heading towards a major global conflict along the lines of WW3 and securing resources and regions ahead of time is one of our smartest options. But I don't think that's what we're doing here.

“It appears diplomatic options were still viable and there was no evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Saville Roberts told Cooper.

America and Israel bombed Iran and they immediately started bombing other countries, so what does Saville Roberts know anyways?

Kent's resignation might be meaningful for all sorts of political-coalitional reasons but it begs the question -- who was right, Joe Kent or Donald Trump? In other words, is Iran a threat to America's interests, or only a threat to Israel's interests? Well, I don't think that's a very hard question. There's a new rising right-wing that is totally isolationist and really would pull out of the Middle East entirely but Trump has never been of that school and we don't need to resort to The Israel Lobby for an explanation. Theocratic Iran is one of America's deepest enemies. They fund Hezbollah and Hamas, they threaten America constantly. "Iran is not a threat" has never been Trump's position, even if it's the position of some of those allied with MAGA, and in this case it's not hard to decide who has the better argument.

I see these circular claims being repeated in every single thread on the topic, multiple times, and I'm really tired of it.

  • Is Iran a threat to America's interests?

Well, this is a broad question. A lot of things can be a 'threat', and a lot of things can be of 'interest' to America. But how do you substantiate your point that it is?

  • Theocratic Iran is one of America's deepest enemies.

  • They fund Hezbollah and Hamas

  • They threaten America constantly.

There's no substance or reason to any of this except the threat of Hezbollah and Hamas, which has lead to American casualties in the region. So lets dig into that.

America is in the region chasing its yet to be substantiated 'interest'. This presence causes a response from Iran. I.e. allegedly funding proxies like Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas.

My problem here is that this Iranian response is used as a reason to be against Iran without ever demonstrating that the Iranian response is unreasonable or unwarranted. Since the 'interest' America is seeking and the means by which they go about securing it are never explored.

For instance, back in the 50's, Iran, an allegedly democratic and sovereign nation, wants to nationalize its oil production. (We can discuss the validity of that want, but as far as I can tell the original demands weren't unreasonable) America and the UK want to prevent this. So they stage a coup and replace the democratically elected Iranian government with an authoritarian puppet. The Iranian people eventually revolt and the puppet government is replaced with a particularly ideologically fervent strain of Islam.(The rise of which is not entirely unpredictable given it was the strongest organization on the ground after the puppet government had repressed most explicitly political alternatives) The existence of this new religious government is then used to justify backing Iraq in invading Iran.

It is then, 3 years into a brutal war where America is a direct backer of a foreign nation invading Iran, that had already cost over a hundred thousand Iranian lives, that American forces are targeted by alleged Iran proxies in the Beirut attacks.

With this being said, can someone now remark on the validity of this narrative, what a reasonable Iranian response to these events would have looked like, and what the actual interests of the US is in the region and how that interest is served by continuing this particular strategy. Because it seems like we are neck deep in sunk cost and past mistakes that keep compounding with every further action being taken.

Like, if the Iranian government doesn't fall in the next three weeks, and if it isn't replaced with a regime that is anti-China, Russia and North Korea but also pro-Israel, what is the gain?

what a reasonable Iranian response to these events would have looked like

Do you think attacking the merchant ships of third party nations either directly or via proxies is "reasonable?"

what the actual interests of the US is in the region

Wouldn't you agree that, at a minimum, the US has an interest in preventing people from attacking US merchant and naval vessels and that to the extent that Iran supports and assists the Houthis the US has an interest in preventing such future support and aid?

I'm pretty much in favor of a realistic and restrained foreign policy and have concerns about this war but even the most pacifistic and isolationist American presidents have sent the Navy to blow up the things of people who messed with our shipping and they were correct to do so.

Like, if the Iranian government doesn't fall in the next three weeks, and if it isn't replaced with a regime that is anti-China, Russia and North Korea but also pro-Israel, what is the gain?

Destroying Iran's capability to effectively wage a conventional war while also forging a regional anti-Iranian coalition comprised of everyone Iran shot ballistic missiles at seems like a benefit, particularly if the United States would benefit from withdrawing its force presence in the Middle East but is unwilling to do so while hostile actors might target US regional friends, US shipping, etc.

I have my doubts that things will play out this neatly but if we actually thwap Iran and Israel can play nice with all of its new friends we might actually get something like regional peace and perhaps the US can even more or less stop playing in the sandbox, maybe.

Even if that doesn't happen, it will likely give the US greater freedom in the future from a force allocation/contingency planning perspective.

You don't engage with the substance of my comment and instead provide more circular reasoning.

Do you think attacking the merchant ships of third party nations either directly or via proxies is "reasonable?"

I feel like this circular response hits the heart of my post and why I made it.

Why did the Houthis start attacking the merchant ships? Was that attack not 'reasonable' given we all known that shipping is important to both Israel and the US?

What do you believe the Houthis should have done? Why should Iran not fund their proxies considering the history?

Wouldn't you agree that, at a minimum, the US has an interest in preventing people from attacking US merchant and naval vessels and that to the extent that Iran supports and assists the Houthis the US has an interest in preventing such future support and aid?

Of course. That is one of the reasons why can't understand your position. You are defending a track record that has caused all of these bad things to happen. That then causes further problems for Americas interest.

What do you believe the Houthis should have done?

Not be hostis humani generis and attack everyone for attention. Israel doing bad shit is not an excuse to start killing everyone you can get your hands on in a giant temper tantrum. That's not a valid military target; hell, most terrorists wouldn't consider it a valid target. The groups with such nonexistent discrimination are what, serial killers, pirates and (most) mass shooters?

They killed how many in total when closing that shipping route? 20? Compare that to Israel and how many they were killing when indiscriminately bombing Gaza and you don't have any moral comparison that makes sense anymore.

Both the Germans and the British used indiscriminate blockades as a tactic during both world wars. Is Winston Churchill basically a pirate serial killer mass shooter?

If the Houthis had only attacked ships going to/from Israel, I wouldn't be describing them in these terms.

Was that attack not 'reasonable' given we all known that shipping is important to both Israel and the US?

If it was reasonable, then it was reasonable for the United States to retaliate, as they did.

Plenty of things (the 9/11 attacks, Hitler's commando order, wiping out the dodo, overthrowing the Iranian government on behalf of Standard Oil) can be defended as 'reasonable' – but if I am allowed to think that the United States meddling in the affairs of the Iranian government 50 years ago is a bad idea because it its bad consequences, then I am allowed to think the same thing about Iran meddling in peaceful trade and otherwise irritating more powerful nations and causing a regional power bloc to form against them for ideological reasons.

You mention in your prior post American aid for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. You don't mention that Israel assisted Iran during that conflict. If it is reasonable for Iran to pursue a course of violence against the United States for assisting Iraq, is it also reasonable for Iran to pursue a course of violence against Israel after Israel assisted them?

You are defending a track record that has caused all of these bad things to happen.

Americans have had to protect their shipping since the very beginning of their nation, from the French, British, and Algerians during the era of the Founders, simply because they wished to engage in neutral trade with other nations unmolested.

And as flattering as it is for Americans to believe that everything revolves around them, they are not actually the Prime Mover. The truth is that Iran is engaged in a regional power struggle with its neighbors, many of which the United States has friendly relations with. And a very brief perusal of US involvement in the region will show that these regional power struggles create collateral losses for the United States. Because Iran is engaged in proxy warfare with the Saudis and Israel, we have no particular reason to believe that the US departure from the area would cause the regional crisis to cease, nor do we have a guarantee that Iran wouldn't do things such as blockade the Red Sea or Straits of Hormuz. In fact we know that Iran did this sort of thing in the past during their war with Iraq!

Your logic seems to be that this is all the poisoned fruit of the United States and UK meddling in Iran ~50 years ago. I think it's completely fair to criticize that decision, and to point out that it had bad consequences. But the United States did not make the only decision: Iran had its own set of decisions to make, some of them were poor ones, and that is why we are where we are.

We can think of an analogous decision, wherein we hold Germany responsible for the Holodomor because they assisted placing Lenin in power. Certainly that decision can be criticized! But so too can the mistakes and outright evil deeds perpetrated by the Soviets. It's absurd to give them no agency, and it's absurd to give the Iranians no say in their own actions.

It's only looks reasonable if you create a small circular argument that begins with 'Iran bad' and ends with 'Therefor Iran bad and needs to be stopped'. Which is all you are doing. Comment after comment. At every turn when I ask you to evaluate and demonstrate that Iran acted unreasonably or had better options you either ignore it or short circuit and say 'Iran bad'.

I mean:

Because Iran is engaged in proxy warfare with the Saudis and Israel, we have no particular reason to believe that the US departure from the area would cause the regional crisis to cease, nor do we have a guarantee that Iran wouldn't do things such as blockade the Red Sea or Straits of Hormuz. In fact we know that Iran did this sort of thing in the past during their war with Iraq!

Now, why would Iran do such a thing as block shipping routes during their defensive war against Iraq? What could the US and other countries possibly have done to not have to deal with that? Maybe not directly back Iraq in invading Iran? No no, that's not what you respond to. You create short circular loops of 'Iran bad therefor military action against Iran good' instead.

Does Iran close the strait in peacetime? Does Iran not look to make deals with other countries to allow their ships to pass and not others? What a curious thing for an unreasonable country to do.

And here again, the exact same circular argument:

Your logic seems to be that this is all the poisoned fruit of the United States and UK meddling in Iran ~50 years ago. I think it's completely fair to criticize that decision, and to point out that it had bad consequences. But the United States did not make the only decision: Iran had its own set of decisions to make, some of them were poor ones, and that is why we are where we are.

It's just crazy that you do this again and again. What were these decisions? Where did America offer or facilitate better alternatives? If America caused the conflict to begin with by attempting to strongarm the Iranians for their oil, and then follows that up with a coup, then transitions into directly backing a full scale invasion into Iran, and in the fallout of that 8 year war never once takes a step back to deescalate or acknowledge what has transpired then how on earth can the Iranian response to this America made mess be a relevant cause towards any further escalating action against Iran? If you make a geopolitical blunder, the correct course of action is to accept the loss. Not constantly double down on it and then point to the negative fallout your failures caused as a further reason to engage in more failures.

We can think of an analogous decision, wherein we hold Germany responsible for the Holodomor because they assisted placing Lenin in power. Certainly that decision can be criticized! But so too can the mistakes and outright evil deeds perpetrated by the Soviets. It's absurd to give them no agency, and it's absurd to give the Iranians no say in their own actions.

Communism bad therefor Operation Barbarossa good? I agree that this is analogous to what the US is doing. I am asking you to consider why Germany returned Lenin with millions in cash, what the fallout of that decision was and to consider that further escalation of warfare was a bad decision for everyone.

It's only looks reasonable if you create a small circular argument that begins with 'Iran bad' and ends with 'Therefor Iran bad and needs to be stopped'.

I don't know that "Iran bad" really matters, does it? Iran is, like, a little bad, sure. You seem to want to boil this down to "Iran good/bad, US bad/good" – both countries have actually in real life done rotten things and the US or Iran being a better or worse country than the other doesn't mean that the way they have conducted themselves in these particular circumstances is wise. I don't really think it was wise of the US to meddle in Iran's government, that doesn't mean it was wise of Iran to poke the States.

You create short circular loops of 'Iran bad therefor military action against Iran good' instead.

Please note, for the record, that contrary to your suggestion, I've expressed skepticism about US military action against Iran. You've expressed skepticism about US "interest" as regards Iran's conduct and I am trying to explain the US interest to you (poorly, I guess.)

At every turn when I ask you to evaluate and demonstrate that Iran acted unreasonably or had better options you either ignore it or short circuit and say 'Iran bad'.

What would meet your threshold for unreasonable behavior? Lying to the IAEA about their past nuclear aspirations, thus undermining the JCPOA?

The truth is that two countries can both act fairly reasonably and come into conflict anyway.

What could the US and other countries possibly have done to not have to deal with that? Maybe not directly back Iraq in invading Iran?

What did Japan, Cyprus, Spain, South Korea, Panama, Greece, Liberia, Pakistan, India, the Bahamas, Romania, Denmark, the Maldives, or Singapore ever do to support Iraq?

I don't even think blockades are particularly evil – like, you're at war with Iraq, you've gotta do what you've gotta do – but are you insisting that Japanese-flagged ships in some moral sense deserve to be attacked by Iran? Or that, just because Iran has decided it will help it in its war if it attacks neutral shipping, that the neutral shipping just has to agree to that?

What were these decisions? Where did America offer or facilitate better alternatives?

The United States did not in any sense make them attempt to procure nuclear weapons, lie to the IAEA about their attempts to procure nuclear weapons, fund Shiite proxy forces that attacked American servicemen in Iraq, attack American vessels, fund third parties that attacked American vessels, attempt to assassinate the President of the United States, assassinate Iranian exiles abroad, purge its own military, fund terrorist groups that take citizens of foreign countries hostage and/or murder them, kill large numbers of their own people, or generally give off such bad vibes that the Russians worked collaboratively with the Americans to prevent them from getting access to nuclear material and repeatedly refused to deliver advanced weapons they wanted access to.

Some of these decisions were worse than others from a practical standpoint, some of them were arguably pretty defensible, but they were all made by Iran.

If you make a geopolitical blunder, the correct course of action is to accept the loss.

I do agree that we should not have facilitated the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran or done anything in 1953.

never once takes a step back to deescalate or acknowledge what has transpired

This isn't true at all, President Obama specifically acknowledged the 1953 coup and made clear steps to deescalate with Iran by getting involved in JCPOA in the first place.

I am asking you to consider why Germany returned Lenin with millions in cash, what the fallout of that decision was and to consider that further escalation of warfare was a bad decision for everyone.

Germany made a massive, horrific mistake sending Lenin in with millions in cash. Lenin promptly betrayed them, and if Germany had launched a proper invasion of Russia afterwards and removed him from power (as they considered doing, and as Lenin practically dared them to do) they would likely have prevented innumerable deaths in the USSR. It's deeply unfortunate that they did not.

Whether or not that situation is analogous to the US and Iran, I don't know. But the lesson from Lenin is "don't put an ideologue in power, and if you do, take him out while he is still weak or his troops will rape all of your daughters."

I don't know that "Iran bad" really matters, does it? Iran is, like, a little bad, sure. You seem to want to boil this down to "Iran good/bad, US bad/good" – both countries have actually in real life done rotten things and the US or Iran being a better or worse country than the other doesn't mean that the way they have conducted themselves in these particular circumstances is wise. I don't really think it was wise of the US to meddle in Iran's government, that doesn't mean it was wise of Iran to poke the States.

It's incredible that you wrote all this just to say 'Iran bad' again.

You've expressed skepticism about US "interest" as regards Iran's conduct and I am trying to explain the US interest to you

That's not correct. The point I'm making is that the hostile actions taken by Israel and the US have not served the interests of the US in the region.

What would meet your threshold for unreasonable behavior? Lying to the IAEA about their past nuclear aspirations, thus undermining the JCPOA?

That would be unreasonable behavior depending on the extent of the lies, when they were made, their geopolitical situation at the time when the research was being done. But considering their neighbor state, Israel, hasn't even signed the NPT and the hostilities between them and Iran, not to mention Iraq's use of chemical weapons and their own nuclear weapons research during a time they were being supported by the US in invading Iran, I'm hesitant to say that the US is in a position to leverage that as a reason.

When did these lies get uncovered and how did they undermine the JCPOA? As far as I've understood things, Iran was in compliance and that this was repeatedly verified up until the Trump admin invalidated the agreement.

but are you insisting that Japanese-flagged ships in some moral sense deserve to be attacked by Iran? Or that, just because Iran has decided it will help it in its war if it attacks neutral shipping, that the neutral shipping just has to agree to that?

No. I'm saying US interest and the interest of nations that depend on the US are hurt by the actions of the US in the region and that the response they get from Iran is entirely predictable.

The United States did not in any sense make them attempt to

Yes they did. At every turn the US forced Iran's hand. At every point of escalation Iran had to match it or get destroyed. You can not have a clearer line drawn in the sand than when chemical weapons are used against your people. There is no coming back from that. To act as if Iran was unreasonable when it started funding and arming proxies in the region after such a terrible war is a joke.

The one time the US offered a deal to the Iranians they signed it and stood by it until the US invalidated it. As you correctly point out, Obama did indeed facilitate that. And despite claims that it was too good of a deal for Iran, there was a host of nations that disagreed.

I do agree that we should not have facilitated the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran or done anything in 1953.

This I find curious. Why? Would continued access to very cheap oil not be of benefit to the US?

More comments

If it was reasonable, then it was reasonable for the United States to retaliate, as they did.

Well no, that doesn't follow at all.

Morally, if they're reasonable then the solution may be to solve the underlying issue.

Practically, if you don't have the ability to stop them by force (as Prosperity Guardian and Rough Rider have amply demonstrated) then the easier solution is to pull the leash on the country you actually have some influence over.

Americans have had to protect their shipping since the very beginning of their nation, from the French, British, and Algerians during the era of the Founders, simply because they wished to engage in neutral trade with other nations unmolested.

Strange how this principle doesn't apply to those who wish to engage in neutral trade with Gaza. Blockades interfering with neutral trade evidently are only an issue when they're imposed by the wrong countries. Woodrow Wilson never exercised his right to "defend free trade" when it was the Brits blockading Germany during the First World War either.

Morally, if they're reasonable then the solution may be to solve the underlying issue.

There's not really any way to "solve" the issue of states having divergent interests, but "Iran exporting an ideology hostile to most of its neighbors" has caused a lot of grief and it's pretty clear that Israel is not the only regional power who wants them to stop. One might be tempted to suggest that removing their capacity to project power would solve the underlying issue.

Practically, if you don't have the ability to stop them by force (as Prosperity Guardian and Rough Rider have amply demonstrated) then the easier solution is to pull the leash on the country you actually have some influence over.

After the operations you named, the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US vessels, and so far have not resumed (even though the United States is attacking Iran.) This might be a good argument that (US objectives having been achieved) the current strikes on Iran are a mistake, but it doesn't seem like a great argument that the US does not have the ability to influence Iranian/Houthi behavior by force, or that Iran's decision to arm proxies and support them in a blockade against neutral shipping was, in fact, a good idea.

Strange how this principle doesn't apply to those who wish to engage in neutral trade with Gaza.

Well, first off, Gaza is not a sovereign state. But secondly, even though it isn't, any country who wishes to go to war with Israel over it may do so.

Blockades interfering with neutral trade evidently are only an issue when they're imposed by the wrong countries.

Yes, that's how it works, more or less. Blockades impose a cost on neutral countries, and neutral countries may then decide if it serves their interests to use military force to attempt to set things right.

Woodrow Wilson never exercised his right to "defend free trade" when it was the Brits blockading Germany during the First World War either.

This is true in the narrow sense that Wilson didn't go to war over it, but he did raise a stink about it, and the British bent over backwards to make sure it didn't cause substantial financial distress to the United States and avoided killing Americans.

The US choices in that war were the Germans (unrestricted submarine warfare) and the British (will pay you for the cargo they confiscated). The US choices in this conflict are the Israelis (won't interfere with your shipping, unless maybe it's going to Gaza, which the United States does not recognize as a state) and the Iranians/Houthis (long track record of trying to shut down access to global waterways).

After the operations you named, the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US vessels, and so far have not resumed (even though the United States is attacking Iran.) This might be a good argument that (US objectives having been achieved) the current strikes on Iran are a mistake, but it doesn't seem like a great argument that the US does not have the ability to influence Iranian/Houthi behavior by force, or that Iran's decision to arm proxies and support them in a blockade against neutral shipping was, in fact, a good idea.

The Houthis agreed to stop attacking the US Navy, which were the only "US vessels" that even attempted to cross the Bab el Mandeb during Trump's term. This does not represent any kind of influence on Houthi behavior because they had been offering such a "deal" since the very start of operations and if anything represents a climbdown from the US, which ultimately left the blockade in place and missiles continuing to fly at Israel.

What I would say isn't a good idea is repeatedly letting the whole world see the hard limits of American power as some mid tier power grabs control of key international waterways and squeezes while the President impotently screams and issues a half dozen contradictory statements ranging from "It doesn't matter, high oil prices are good" to "We'll bomb all their power plants" to "We'll send in the Marines". This whole affair seems like a combination of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Suez Crisis, neither of which were "good ideas" with positive consequences for the countries involved.

Yes, that's how it works, more or less. Blockades impose a cost on neutral countries, and neutral countries may then decide if it serves their interests to use military force to attempt to set things right.

Well currently it seems like neutral countries are choosing to pay the Ayatollah Toll rather than try to take the Strait by force so I'd say that's not a great sign for the wisdom of this operation

More comments

backing Iraq in invading Iran

America supported Iraq while Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran resulting in 50,000+ casualties. Iran did not respond in kind on religious grounds, which is ironic; they may have used them years into the war less extensively, but the evidence for this is iffy (no UN verification)

is Iran a threat to America's interests, or only a threat to Israel's interests?

They were always a threat to America's interests, just a matter of "how much." Israel aside, they've funded terrorism, provided arms to Russia for use in Ukraine, and threatened to build nukes. But they've been doing that kind of thing for decades. The real question is if the water's gotten hot enough for the frog to jump out. As Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq have shown us, war can be expensive and fail to actually get you the thing you wanted despite "winning" it. Or just make the problem worse.

I'm not crying for the Ayatollah, but I'm not seeing the plan of what we're actually going to accomplish by the end of this or how. Mostly I'm just noting the irony of Don the Dove. And laughing at how Trump can't get any of America's allies on board after calling them deadbeats.

Joe Kent or Donald Trump?

Which Donald Trump? The one who said starting a war with Iran is done because you're bad at deal making?. Or the Trump who promised on election night we would have no new wars? Is it the Trump who claimed last year that Iran nuclear efforts were set back multiple years from the strikes then but now they're just weeks away as Israel always claims? How about the Trump who claims we already won and the strait is open?

Which one is right here?

Theocratic Iran is one of America's deepest enemies. They fund Hezbollah and Hamas, they threaten America constantly.

Those groups hate the US, but we're on the other side of the planet with much better armies. Especially Hamas, the idea that they meaningfully threaten the average American at all is laughable. Hamas is an Israeli problem, and if it wasn't for the immense Jew lobby we would be easily dismissing it as normal middle east nonsense.

[I]s Iran a threat to America's interests, or only a threat to Israel's interests?

I'm not certain that one can meaningfully separate these; to allow, through inaction, the destruction of Israel would invite a metric arse-load of bad karma on a country already on shaky ice after the MS St Louis.

the destruction of Israel would invite a metric arse-load of bad karma

I think it is extremely telling that this is the level of argument you have to make to support this war or the pro-Zionist position. Israel and America's interests are deeply opposed here, and to pretend otherwise forces you to descend to this honestly laughable standard of argument.

Yea. One can go full John Hagee style Christian Zionist and find in the Bible proof texts showing that Jews are forever chosen people and God will bless forever everyone who blesses Israel.

bad karma

To use religious arguments based on Buddhism or Hinduism to support Israel is rather ... unorthodox.

To use religious arguments based on Buddhism or Hinduism to support Israel is rather ... unorthodox.

Reform, perhaps

Correction and apology, belief in reincarnation seems to be a thing in some streams of Orthodox Judaism. Doubt that many Reform Jews would adhere to this idea.

Anyway, I also doubt that there is any Buddhist school that believes in collective karma.

"The bad things happening to you? You deserve it. Not due to your bad deeds in you current or previous lives, but because king of your country did bad thing 100 years ago."

Well, from the Guardian article you link:

Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”

Ok, so Iran offered this great deal where they concede on everything except the most important point that proves they're actually following through on their concessions -- why won't mean evil Donald Trump and the Israel Lobby do a deal?

The most important point was on enrichment and the treatment of the highly enriched stockpile, which Iran had conceded and was why those involved in the process, other than Witkoff and Kushner, thought a deal was within reach. And diplomats involved with the talks said Witkoff and Kushner were regarded as Israeli assets. So yeah the consensus among everyone involved except Witkoff/Kushner seems to have been:

  • No imminent threat
  • Major concessions put a deal within reach

"Iran will stop enrichment they just won't allow inspectors in their country to prove they aren't doing enrichment. (They can't do enrichment anyways because US bombs destroyed their capacity to do enrichments, but bombs don't work and are a bad idea.)"

Please explain why this is evidence that Kushner and Witkoff were incorrect, that Iran is a good boy who was turning his life around, and that we should actually take the word of an anonymous official in a Guardian Article that Witkoff and Kushner are instead traitors manipulating America for their own sectarian benefit.

Trump of course immediately goes to his classic method of "just insult anyone who disagrees with you on anything" https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/2033939188064702746

“I always thought he was weak on security.”

Either he knowingly put someone "weak on security" in charge of counterterrorism efforts, or he's a lying bullshitter who just makes shit up about you if you ever upset him.

Kent goes above and beyond trying to paint over it being the president's own choices and he still gets treated this way, cause of course.

We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets

Huh what interesting names to be Israeli assets, crazy coincidence I suppose. I wonder if Witkoff was wearing the pager he was apparently given by Mossad during these discussions with Trump

Either he knowingly put someone "weak on security" in charge of counterterrorism efforts, or he's a lying bullshitter who just makes shit up about you if you ever upset him.

Isn't this what Trump and Trump supporters actually want you to think though – that Trump is a lying bullshitter who will dunk on you if you upset him, regardless of the truth/falsity/merits of the case? That way he can build a coalition that maintains loyalty and enables him to use his bully pulpit to ram things through in a way others could not, because they are afraid to oppose him. That is how his whole operation works. If he didn't lie and bullshit, it would be possible for his opponents to use reason and evidence to combat his insults, which would defang them significantly. They have to be regarded as insult theatre, not grounded in reality, to act as effective in/out-group markers.

I would have thought that MAGA supporters would at least tacitly accept this characterisation, though I confess they sometimes surprise me.

I disagree about characterizing it as lying, but yeah, the simple statement that his insults don't really mean much, and are more reflective of whether he perceived their target as loyal or disloyal than of their actual merits, is uncontroversial.

Kent goes above and beyond trying to paint over it being the president's own choices and he still gets treated this way, cause of course.

Yes because that's how that works. What is Trump supposed to say, "Maybe Kent has a point maybe I have been duped and lied to?" Don't be ridiculous. Trump's criticism is extremely mild here, which is about what you deserve when you leave with a big dramatic announcement while at least not criticizing the boss in harsh terms. But what exactly did you expect? Kent could have left quietly, he didn't have to put out a big statement saying, Donald Trump made a huge mistake, let's consume a news cycle with a high-profile resignation about how Donald Trump made a huge mistake. You resign in situations like this for your own sense of integrity and maybe the hope that this stores up goodwill for some other political endeavor in the future. That's all priced in to what it means to resign for reasons of conscience. If anything "he was weak on security" is about on the same level as "Trump was duped" -- which is to say this is not so far an escalation on Trump's part and this is just how men disagree with each other.

How about "Kent is allowed to have his disagreements, but I believe he is wrong here" instead of saying that Kent is so terrible at the job Trump nominated him for that it was always known, even before the nomination. There are a lot of ways to part in business and government without being an asshole are there not?

This isn't a dichotomy between "say nothing" or "insult your former employee". Kent was respectful and in return he gets trash talked and smeared.

Quite obviously Trump is a total asshole though so he is hardly going to respond in the way that you or I would prefer. It's not unreasonable to criticise him on these grounds, but to criticise him for lying, bullying, being an asshole, believing in conspiracy theory, not being long-term, etc etc is simply going to be water off a duck's back to his supporters because those traits are his entire thing.`

The only way to get through is to show that he is weak.

Trump is in full bullshitting mode, lying and contradicting himself every other sentence. Yesterday he said he was preparing to announce a grand naval Coalition to re-open the Straits, today he says nobody is coming and he doesn't need them. Yesterday he said he talked to a former President who disclosed to Trump that the president regretted not attacking Iran like Trump did. A claim that was promptly disputed by every single living President. Most likely he was talking to AI George Washington, who happened to completely agree with Glenn Beck's support for attacking Iran.

Yesterday he said he talked to a former President who disclosed to Trump that the president regretted not attacking Iran like Trump did. A claim that was promptly disputed by every single living President.

This is just "he said she said". None of the presidents even denied it as such, it was just statements from their aides. Do you feel even a little dishonest characterizing this in the maximally negative way while yourself complaining about bullshit and lies?

I kind of assumed it wasn't a president of the USA.

Funniest option is if he was talking about Maduro.

They should really watch the WBC final togehter.

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