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 -
Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced today he was resigning over the war in Iran.
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.
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.
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?
Do you think attacking the merchant ships of third party nations either directly or via proxies is "reasonable?"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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?
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 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?
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.
I do agree that we should not have facilitated the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran or done anything in 1953.
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.
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."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link