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 -
If the ultimate goal here is to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program, the path the administration is currently on isn't set up to do that. That would require a ground invasion to secure the known nuclear sites, destroy the equipment, and remove the fissile material. But Trump doesn't have the stomach for that, if only because he knows it would be incredibly costly and would likely drag on much longer than he can endure politically. Such an invasion would have a high risk of turning into an Iraq-style quagmire. You don't seem to be advocating for that either, and instead propose two half-measure options.
Option A is less likely to happen now than it was before the war, and the chances were already diminished after Trump backed out of the JCPOA. You can complain all you want about the lack of "any time, anywhere" inspections, but Iran was already giving up quite a lot in exchange for relatively little. The big prize for Iran was the lifting of UN sanctions, but those weren't affected by the US pullout. The actual US sanctions relief provided wasn't much, and there was no plan to resume normal relations. If Trump was concerned that Iran wasn't holding up their end of the deal, there were mechanisms for that to be adjudicated, but he had no interest in hearing what an independent panel had to say about the matter. All his actions served to accomplish was a more complete erosion of trust. If Trump wanted more from the Iran deal he could have gone back to the bargaining table and offered more concessions. As someone who likes to pretend he's a master dealmaker, he doesn't seem to understand that you get what you pay for.
Of course, Trump wasn't the first person to poison this well. Back in the days before anyone was concerned about a nuclear Iran, the Iranians elected their version of an opposition candidate as president, one who did not have the endorsement of the Supreme Leader and who ran on a platform of increased dialogue with the West. There were some early successes under the Clinton administration (largely undone due to suspicion of involvement in the USS Cole bombing), and Iran denounced the 9/11 terrorists and provided key US intelligence in the invasion of Afghanistan. Then Bush gave his Axis of Evil speech, which didn't help matters, and when Iran offered their assistance with the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration stonewalled them. The effect of all of this was that the Iranian electorate came to believe that dialogue with the US was pointless, and the moderates were driven out of power. Instead you get Ahmadinejad, a revived nuclear weapons program, and intransigence in the face of international pressure. And then after they think they have a deal Trump looks for a reason to back out. Why would the Iranian government think they can trust the US to hold up their end of any bargain? Even if they agree to the kind of verifiable reductions that you're talking about, the US doesn't have a great track record with those, either. Hans Blix said numerous times in the months prior to the Iraq War that his inspection teams couldn't find any evidence of WMD facilities, but the US decided to believe their own intelligence instead and invaded anyway. If Iran actually is a nuclear threat, then their best bet at this point is to develop nukes before the US stops them, which, as I said at the beginning, they aren't going to do.
Option B is more likely to happen, but you seem to forget that Afghanistan played a key role in the worst terrorist attack in US history. Such a key role that invading them was uncontroversial. And such a scenario doesn't preclude them from getting nukes. If Iranians cause another 9/11, what do you do then? You've already bombed them back to the Stone Age, so that isn't going to be an option.
More options
Context Copy link