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 -
I've noted several times that I do not think all of Iran's actions were unreasonable.
I think that if Iran had been more restrained with its proxy networks (either directing them to refrain from behaving in such aggressive manners against the United States or cutting off ones they could not control) and pursued a more conciliatory policy towards the US and Israel, they would have had better outcomes.
They could also have pursued rapprochement with the US and tried to reintegrate themselves into the US regional umbrella as the Shah had (remember, a lot of US interest in the region was due to the Soviets and that interest did not go away when the Shah was deposed) or they could have, particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union, taken the hint from Russia and dropped their nuclear weapons research. Pursuing either option would likely have allowed them better access to conventional weaponry, either American or Russian, and better access to the global market. This would have given Israel and other nations less reason to intervene (no nuclear weapons) and imposed higher costs on their intervention (more high-end weapons to defend themselves with.) They could even have continued their cooperation with Israel after the Iran-Iraq war. Israel might have been willing to continue helping them maintain and build out their conventional forces as a counterweight to hostile Sunni states. Instead, Iran's aggression towards the United States, Israel, and their Sunni neighbors created a powerful regional coalition against them, while their pursuit of nuclear weapons alienated Russia (which to be fair maintains good relations with Israel in any event.)
Or, they could have tried to coalition build with their Sunni Muslim neighbors. This would be mutually distasteful, but the United States listens to Saudi Arabia, and a more restrained Iran that was not-hostile towards the United States and not-friendly towards Israel could have coalitioned together to prevent Israeli aggression.
Or, they could have pursued a nuclear weapon quietly instead of creating a nasty regional proxy network while pursuing conciliatory policies towards their neighbors. This would lower the perceived threat of the nuclear weapons program.
Iran did none of this. Instead, they pushed the Saudis into the corner with the Israelis, alienated the Russians, and angered the Americans.
Giving the Houthis the ability to dictate US policy by threatening to cut off international trade is not really a great idea.
Which Iran signed!
But, as I understand it, it was also a violation of the JCPOA, at least in the sense that Iran was supposed to disclose past nuclear dealings.
Sure, I am open to the possibility that the US leaving the JCPOA was a bad idea.
First off, to be clear, Israel doesn't border Iran; they are separated by about 500 miles of other countries. (They are all arguably in the same neighborhood, that's fair enough!) Secondly, other nations, including ones actually bordering Israel, haven't pursued the path that Iran has, though, even if they have reason to be fairly hostile to Israel (or even if they are probably conducting illicit nuclear weapons research.) So the idea that Iran has had no choice but to do all of this doesn't really seem correct.
I mean - shooting ballistic missiles after the US killed Soleimani was fair enough. Forming proxy networks, maybe. Mining international waters? Seems like (in hindsight) it likely hurt more than it helped. Most of the other stuff seems gratuitous.
Sure, and it depends a lot on who you ask. The idea that the US should uphold international trade, by military force if necessary, is pretty popular in America even with people who are skeptical of, e.g., Iraq.
Yes, this is why the US hit Soleimani (for killing Americans, not so much for the torture although maybe he did that too). So it seems like we're both agreed that US retaliation against Iranian assets when those Iranian assets kill Americans is, in fact, reasonable?
I am very sympathetic to Iran's position (AIOC seemed to be doing shady stuff!) but moving from a contract dispute to seizure is pretty escalatory. And even if it was entirely justified, they had to have anticipated a negative British reaction.
More options
Context Copy link