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 -
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.
I am glad to be told this by my benevolent overlord.
America, unlike Iran, famously never uses its dominance of key global markets to get its way /s
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.
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 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:
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
pratPrime 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
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.
This did not happen, I was there.
My memory may be bad, but it seems like a reasonable description of some of the posts I remember reading here at the time.
We have more outright nazi sympathizers on this site than people who could be accurately described as supporting the extermination of the Palestinians. This is ridiculous hyperbole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
And one of the core tenets of capitalism is that you have the right to value anything however highly you wish. If your neighbor comes to you offering to buy your house, you have every right to tell him it has sentimental value and that he should kindly fuck off, even if he offers you a lucrative deal. You don't actually owe it to him to be willing to sell.
This is a game of DARVO. They said no. They have a right to say no. And while Trump does have the right to come up with a more lucrative deal, he's instead going the route of trying to find ways to punish them for not accepting a deal they think is bad. Sorry, but the problem is not that third parties are unreasonable for not being helpful to you.
Neighbor A: Good day, neighbor!
Neighbor B: You too, neighbor!
A: I see this old bike you have on your yard, could I have it? It is lying there for a long time, you are not riding it, but I can use it.
B: You can borrow it and ride it at any time, if you want, we are neighbors, after all.
A: I would pay you for the bike good money, I really want it for myself.
B: It's my grandpa's bike, it is our family heirloom. Sorry, but it is not for sale, but as I said, you can borrow it.
A: See this, nerd? This is a gun. I could shoot you at any time and take this shitty bike, if I wanted so, but I offered you money because I am good and generous neighbor.
Think about this offer, nerd, until it lasts.
B: ... thinking for myself ...
This neighbor gives me some bad vibes. Maybe I should ask my other neighbor, who has gun too, to help me.
And, maybe, i should get together with another neighbor and get guns for ourselves too.
More options
Context Copy link
“Opposition to Greenland was irrational” “Oh yeah? We have the right to be irrational!”
I think you’re making my point for me
Are you genuinely trying to think from Denmark's point of view, and imagining that if it were you speaking in the Folketing, you would say, "What harm can it do to enter negotiations?" Would you say to the Greenlanders, "We're thinking of selling you out of self-interest and fear of American aggression, but don't worry, we'll definitely put your interests first, even though you won't be our citizens any more afterwards?". Would you say to your Danish voters, "We know you hate the idea of selling off our territory, but let's see what price they'll pay and then talk about it afterwards." Would you say to other European nations, "We know you hate the idea of selling off bits of our continent and the precedent that sets, but we're just talking, don't be so agitated."
Or would you just make a red line and keep your territory, dignity and support intact?
Talk us through how you imagine a rational Danish leader handling this.
Point of order: Greenland is part of North America, not Europe. It's closer to the North American mainland than to Europe, it's on the North American Plate, and it was first settled from the West. Yes, European colonisation has been a significant part of its history, but that's true of Siberia as well.
More options
Context Copy link
America is a pretty chauvinistic and patriotic country but tomorrow if news came out that negotiations were underway to sell American Samoa or Puerto Rico or Guam, most people would actually not care. You'd get some rally-round-the-flag rah-rah and maybe the other side would shout accusations of selling the country out. But by-and-large the average man on the street would not care unless there were some other scandal involved. These are not core parts of America, we don't have some fantastical attachment to every last inch our "sovereign territory" actually. I can say this relatively confidently because nobody cared when the Philippines went, even though we fought a huge war to acquire it, nobody even noticed, it's a barroom trivia question now at best. Ryukyu Islands were American until 1972. Nobody cares.
So you want to tell me that maybe the politicians could negotiate, but the Danish voters can't possibly have that, and it's the most rational thing in the world. -- ? Why? What does the average Dane actually care about Greenland? Is it a core part of their nationhood? Do they all vacation in Greenland? Fond memories as boys? Does everyone in Denmark have Greenlandic friends, relatives, wives? Is Greenland a point of pride in Danish TV shows and media? Does Greenland form a core part of Denmark's economy? Greenlandic basketball star? Modeling agency? Because it seems like none of that is the case. As far as I can tell, nobody really thinks about Greenland at all, has nothing to do with it. The Danes committed a sterilization campaign there within recent memory. They could barely spare it a thought for defense during World War II, when the Americans had to step in before the Nazis did. So the fanatical Danish attachment to Greenland is based on... what, exactly? Can I not notice that this is extremely irrational?
Because from the beginning even before Trump made threats and boasts the Danes refused to even consider trading Greenland. Why? Is it beyond the pale? Is the ability of Greenlanders to sell technology and land to the Chinese an inviolable human right? Because all that seems to be left is that it's "bits of our continent" as if that settles the matter, it's theirs so we can't have it out of some exaggerated pride. Wailing about how they've been such a good boy and they don't deserve this. Threatening to blow it all up if they don't get their way. ???
A rational Danish leader would say, "well, it's a little goofy, but the Americans are a rich country, we're willing to hear them out as long as the rights of the Greenlanders are respected." The Americans would say, "$100 Billion," or whatever. The Danish public would say, wow, that's a lot of money, we can use this to make Denmark a better place. The Greenlanders would say, "Thanks, hm, we're not so sure but these are our demands." It would be easy and technical, like when the Danes sold us what are now the US Virgin Islands. Did they cry then and wail and complain that we were violating their core territorial sovereignty and stealing their continent? No, it was totally unimportant because nobody cares.
Maybe Greenland really is important to the Danes, but every time I ask I get drivel about human dignity and what good allies they've been. Since it can't be explained it seems totally irrational. Well, we have a pretty good model for this already, and you can groan as I repeat myself for the hundredth time, but, yes, say it with me, it looks like TDS. Trump wants Greenland, it's monarchical, it's what Hitler would do, America can't have Greenland it's about our dignity! Yeah, ok, sure, yeah, ok, whatever you say man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really. In a capitalist system, worth is inherently a subjective matter of how much you/society value something. Obviously Trump values Greenland, or he'd shut up about it. Denmark likewise values Greenland, but Denmark is the would-be seller so they have final say. And they think Trump's offer is shit, for whatever reason they wish. Even the people living in Greenland have no interest.
Why is it rational for Trump to want Greenland, but not rational for Denmark to want Greenland?
This is a non-sequitur. I'm not denying Denmark's right to have a reason. I'm calling their reason irrational.
What does Denmark get out of owning Greenland? A vacation spot? Gold? They really really like running sterilization campaigns? Because they don't really develop Greenland economically outside of running a shitty state shipping monopoly. And whenever this conversation comes up all the Europeans can talk about is pride and dignity and sovereignty. Ok, what's inherently undignified about selling some land to America? Because apparently this is such a disgusting concept that it's worth no quantity of money, there is nothing that could wash the stains out of doing business with, gasp, with the Americans! Yeah and they're such good allies too don't forget, they just insist we wear a mask when we make love.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, hand on heart, it looks extremely sudden to me and simply about Trump's desire to have a big block of land that he can colour in on the map and point to when his presidency is done and say, "I did that." One can construct reasons for America to want ownership of it after the fact, but I personally don't believe they're the true cause. Just a personal opinion. But putting all that aside...
My understanding is that Denmark’s stance is the traditional American approach to property rights. You have the right to offer stuff unilaterally, sure, and maybe the other person will decide that they're interested after all. But "it's mine, I like it, there's no BATNA you're willing to offer and I don't want to give it to you right now" is equally a valid response. Do you disagree? Does that disagreement extend to your daily life and your own possessions?
I sincerely appreciate the good will (I can't prove it over the tubes). Again, though, becoming hostile and threatening when someone doesn't give you what you want is the ur-bully act. If you demand someone’s ice-cream out of their hand and you say, 'look, I want that ice cream, there's no reason you shouldn't give it to me for a fair price', then 'no thank you, we’re not interested' is a fair response and getting hostile is inappropriate. It's just in the nature of things that this interaction looks very different to the two different people involved.
More options
Context Copy link
What was Trump's offer? Was there ever an offer on the table?
Sounds to me like making irrational demands can just be "Art of the Deal"-ing you!
Diplomats were furiously communicating and negotiating on both sides of the Atlantic, just because it didn't happen on twitter doesn't mean it didn't happen in real life.
And just because it didn't happen on twitter, doesn't mean they didn't offer a deal or produce good reasons why a deal didn't happen!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
(Just noting that I have read and appreciate your comment. Some broadly appropriate thoughts were expressed in my discussion with Shakes but I hope to write you a proper reply as well.)
Don't overdo it! All of us shouting at each other saying the same things isn't good for the soul (and likely fixes beliefs and frustrations by repetition).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Yeah, this is the sort of thing that worries me. I'm actually fairly optimistic about the idea of nuclear proliferation => stability, but Iran's put a lot of investment into proxy forces, and it seems possible that having a nuclear umbrella would actually embolden them to use them more aggressively, not less. They would be operating from a different starting position than, e.g., Poland, Belarus, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, etc.
Furthermore they've arguably demonstrated pretty persuasively that personal deterrence won't be effective on their upper echelons of leadership, which makes nuclear deterrence a bit shakier.
People and organizations follow incentives, Iran (and Hamas) have found some very powerful holes in Western incentives structures and are using them elegantly, the world will absolutely let them get away with some tactics (like grossly increased proxy activity) if the alternative is outright war with a nuclear armed state. That could be an existential risk to Israel, trade through Hormuz, and more. And as you note some of the ways around this (like rational trade deals or assassination) don't really seem on the table.
Ultimately the Western approach to Iran has been a bet - a bet that they will collapse before they do something too dangerous and cause something very very bad. It's a tough situation to manage, getting involved is likely going to cause all kinds of bad things and passive waiting is in many ways more "safe" yet it is equally more risky.
Everyone coming in right now to criticize is effectively betting on a game that is already over. We can explore the counterfactual of watchful waiting and what that might mean, but we can never actually know - and it makes intervention look the worse idea because the costs are actually happening.
However if we sat and did nothing......maybe Iran makes a nuke, uses it on Israel and then Israel destroys everything in the Middle East in a dying fit of pique. That's low likely, but it could have happened if we did nothing. We just don't know.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... 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?
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
The problem with that is it's too exploitable -- it can be used for things which are hard but NOT necessary, done only because the entity doing it has other less-noble motives for it.
Sure, don't think that's a universal principle but it's true for some things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This felt like what the justification for the Afghan withdrawal was and I loved it. I agree it's inspiring.
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