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 -
As a Republican who was broadly onboard with toppling Iran well before the most recent flare up, I would like to offer an alternate narrative to the one about Trump is a Joe-Biden-esqe meat puppet being controlled by a zionist cabal, that seems to be the popular consensus here.
First off what does winning look like, in the eyes of team Trump?
Ideally, Iran makes a credible and verifiable commitment to dismantling their nuclear weapons program and stop supplying arms to HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Russian Federation, Et Al. Less Ideally, we turn them into a failed state that wouldn't be able to muster up a nuclear weapons program even if they wanted one. If the choice is between reducing Iran to Afghanistan-esque hodge-podge of pre-industrial warring tribes and giving the IRGC access to nuclear missiles we choose to turn Iran into another Afghanistan.
Importantly we are not going to do the Clinton or Obama thing where we give them a whole bunch of cash and trade concessions in exchange for a pinky-promise not to act up again and then sit on our thumbs when they renege on those promises 6-monthes later. While I'm not privy to the specifics my guess is that the plan is to hold Kharg Island hostage to force Iranian compliance.
How is this in American interests? I think it is just as valid to ask as how is it not?
While there is something of an isolationist streak present in the online right the prevailing attitude amongst the wider GOP is that if the US is going to occupy the role of hegemon we must play the role.
First, I think it needs to be pointed out that, with the Biden-era environmental limits removed the US is once again a net petroleum exporter and the US economy is much better situated to weather possible energy-trade disruptions than say China is.
As the global hegemon, international trade flows freely (and for the most part safely) largely thanks to guarantees that are enforced by the US Navy. If the US is the world's cop, Iran is not some innocent brown kid who got shot for no reason, they're the habitual bad actor with dozens of prior complaints and arrests.
From my perspective democrats' attitude towards the Iranian regime seems to echo their attitudes towards illegal immigration, violent crime. If you ask them if they want violent schizophrenics on the train they'll answer "no", but at the same time they will vehemently oppose anyone who looks like they might try to stop violent schizophrenics from stabbing people on trains. They seem to view the occasional train stabbing or ballistic missile attack as simply the price of doing business.
Essentially none of the comments like this are worth a dime if they don't contend with the progress in the negotiations, and in Iran's compliance with the former deal that Trump ended. Because you aren't even trying to lay out the case for why the escalation path you proposed is lower-risk than making another deal.
We have people here talking about how "oh we just bomb their desalination plants, and yeah maybe they retaliate against the Gulf desalination plans and oil infrastructure and bring the entire region to chaos, mass regional humanitarian crisis, likely mass refugee crisis, risk the global economy, but it's worth it." The fact is, if you are an American, the risk equation is UNAMIBUGOUSLY AGAINST this escalation path. It's only Israel that stands to benefit from this escalation path, nobody else in the world does so. There is no universe in which this escalation path is worth the alternative "risk" of continuing negotiations that, by all accounts other than Kushner and Witkoff, two Zionist Jews who were regarded as Israeli assets by diplomats involved in the negotiation, were proceeding very well.
This is why the Zionist element is the only explanation for why an American would accept this risk to their own interests and the global economy to scuttle those negotiations. This is also why, when someone like you lays out the case for this escalation path, you basically ignore the alternative and much lower-risk path that all parties agreed was alive and progressing well, but then was sabotaged by Witkoff and Kushner at the very moment they made the greatest progress by all accounts.
You also ignore the fact that Iran's hostility towards the US is downstream from our alliance with Israel. So that hostility and the risks associated with it are another cost of the Zionist integration in America. So every step of the way, from the first step to "bomb their desalination plants" is being influenced by Jewish interests, not American interests.
Iran's hostility to America starts with the hostage crisis and continued through its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, through attacks on Americans in Iraq, through its tendency to kidnap American citizens passing through Iran, through cyberattacks, through missiles and drones used to attack American allies, through dozens if not hundreds of attacks on America and its allies in the Middle East. Really, this is ridiculous, Iran is not poor little innocent Iran, they are one of America's greatest and most consistent enemies. They have been for fifty years. They call us the Great Satan. Maybe in some alternate timeline where we weren't allies with Israel we could hold hands and sing kumbayah. So what?
The Hill: Inside Iran’s long history of attacks on US: A timeline
Do you know how hard we are now attacking Iran from our bases and military presence in Iraq and Iraqi airspace? Why were we in Iraq in the first place? You are just explaining how this all goes back to the same answer. We topple Hussein for Israel, Iran arms militias that resist. Oh well now the story is Iran just hates us for no reason, so we have to risk the world to achieve regime change in Iran as well.
How long are people going to fall for this circular logic?
The governing elements of Iran hate us for reasons that are ideological and have realpolitik interests contrary to ours. This isn't "no reason" - the USSR opposed the US under similar conditions. It's a very normal set of reasons for states to fall into conflict. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the US engaged in hostilities with Iran well before its invasion of Iraq.
How exactly is the world at risk from US operations with Iran? The US and Russia playing footsie over Ukraine is much more high-stakes and even then it's probably an exaggeration to say that "the world" is at stake.
The world is at risk from US operations in Iran because Iranian regime faces an existential crisis, and its deterrence is folded into the threat of eliminating regional infrastructure that would cause humanitarian and global economic crisis. This ought to be a very strong incentive to avoid the escalation ladder, the problem is Israel wants to climb the escalation ladder, they will burn down the region to become the regional hegemon even if America is sacrificed as a result (especially if it is). They just bombed Iranian gas facilities today and Iran has ordered the evacuation of Gulf facilities in a possible retaliation.
I agree that knocking out regional oil infrastructure would, at least temporarily, worsen the quality of life of the world generally, but that doesn't "risk the world."
The Iraqis set fire to Kuwait's oil fields, and on a quick Google it looks like the damage was repaired in about 2 years. It seems unlikely that Iran will be able to hit Saudi oil infrastructure both horizontally and vertically (causing long term damage to all Saudi oil infrastructure) so they would focus on chokepoints like refineries and export terminals that would be expensive and difficult to repair or replace.
In your scenario we're basically looking at, potentially, severe but imperfect risk to about 30% of the world's production, which can be at least partially mitigated in the short term by reserves, in the medium term by repairs and production elsewhere, and over the long term by repairs and new construction. It's not going to end the world.
Is this a good reason not to attack Iran? It's definitely worth throwing into the hopper. Is it "risking the world"? Nah.
If Iran could somehow snap its fingers and delete oil production for the Middle East, it would plausibly strengthen the United States (as a massive oil producer with huge reserves) over the medium-long term.
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