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 Iran had showed more restraint whilst the US was either in the process of financing an invasion of them or directly invading their neighboring country of Iraq? That Sunni neighbor that had just failed in their invasion of them? Or whilst America and Israel were destroying Syria and Libya?
Not having WMD's didn't help Iraq or Syria. Giving away their nuclear weapons didn't help Gadaffi, it did quite the opposite. The double standard here nullifies this position completely. Not to mention Israel's nuclear stockpile. What instances of Iranian 'aggression' are you referring to? Because we have already gone over the broad stroke instances and you have not put up much defense of them. Recognizing them as reasonable or at least rational.
Outside of the hostage crisis, I can't take your position seriously. No sober look at the Iran situation, especially considering past events, can justify it being a rational decision to depend on the mercy of America and Israel.
I feel like we are again approaching my original point of circular argumentation, where the aggression and unreasonableness of Iran is referred to without any consideration for why they took the actions they took.
This I agree with. An either or would have been preferable. But considering the conditions, I'm not sure if it would have been plausibly feasible.
But letting Israel dictate US policy is? Pressuring your ally that is engaging in relentless revenge bombing that has been condemned the world over to stop, especially when the blowback starts threatening your interests in the region, is not giving the reigns of your foreign policy away. It's doing quite the opposite.
The JCPOA had no binding resolutions for Iran to immediately disclose all instances of previously undeclared nuclear activity. The treaty was designed to give outside organizations leverage to investigate. Those were the only binding factors aside from specific caps on material and enrichment. This is why, even in 2015 before the JCPOA was in effect, the findings of the IAEA that confirmed Iran had been seeking to create nuclear weapons prior to 2003 were not disqualifying. As those kinds of findings were exactly the kind of thing the JCPOA would help with resolving, since the treaty would give investigators leverage to get access to those sites and demand answers from Iran.
Considering the history of recent death and destruction with its neighbors, I can't agree, as highlighted before. Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi. At least one of them saw the writing on the wall.
I feel like we are getting somewhere here. So what are the concrete reasons for why the US needs to bomb Iran? Maybe instead of saying 'because they fund Hezbollah' a more honest response would be 'we pushed them into a corner and are now dealing with the consequences of doing that whilst unconditionally supporting Israel'
That doesn't seem factually correct to me. Most polling I see says that most Americans don't like either the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or the GWOT in general despite initial popularity.
It seems you are conflating wars in the middle east with upholding international trade. Invading Iraq did not help trade, nor did the invasion into Afghanistan or toppling Assad or Gaddafi. And US protecting Israel's action to bomb civilians in Gaza has only hurt international trade via retaliation from Houthis. And international trade is in a pretty terrible state because of bombing Iran and the fallout.
This position seems completely wrong. Like... Where does this come from?
There was no dispute. The British flat out refused to even allow the Iranians to audit the company that they believed was stiffing them. I agree that it was an escalation, but what was the alternative? Let the communist party ride the issue until they won an election? Would the UK and US take kindly to that development? Something had to be done by Mossadegh, no?
Did Iran's more aggressive actions demonstrably help them in any way?
There's no double standard here. Nuclear weapons are nice to have and dangerous to get.
Then why are you bothering to talk to me?
Look, there are plenty of reasonably stable and well-off regional actors (like Egypt) that have been able to walk back hostility towards Israel. And the result has been that the US gave them piles of foreign aid and weapons systems. I don't see why Iran could not have done the same (except that they did not want to and given the belief systems of the people in power, attempting to do so was likely not a politically tenable option).
No, I have noted in the past where I thought their actions were more or less reasonable. You have at pretty much every turn failed to defend their actions in the sense of tying their specific actions to reasonable objectives and then demonstrating how their actions have succeeded at furthering those objectives. I've done that for you – for instance, noting that retaliating to the US killing of Soleimani was pretty normal - but I still have yet to see any argument from you that, e.g., mining the Strait (although I've noted the incentives for doing so) or funding Hezbollah has on balance succeeded in achieving Iran's reasonable goals.
It's very important for states to tie their means to reasonable ends and rational interests. A state can't just say "we want to achieve X and we are going to do so by doing Y" and then have no interest in whether or not Y is an effective means of achieving X. This is the sort of behavior that got us in trouble in Iraq. I am suggesting that Iran did not correctly calibrate their means to their desired results. You have not made a case for why their actions have been so calibrated. If Iran says "we want to fund Hezbollah to deter the United States and keep them from bombing us" then obviously they did not succeed in their goal, and it is worth asking if they were deploying the correct means to achieve their desired ends.
I have not seen any demonstrated reason why "not funding Hezbollah" would imperil the survival of Iran, where Hezbollah behaves as they have in the past.
I did not say this. You're discussing this with me, not with some avatar of US policy as you imagine it.
This might be the case, but my understanding is that Iran agreed, by signing the JCPOA, to disclose past instances of previously undeclared nuclear activity, and the evidence suggests they did not.
Were any of these US client states at the time they were attacked, or...?
I'm not sure the US 'needs' to do anything in the narrow sense that it could probably use both oceans as a moat, stop exporting oil, tell everyone "good luck" and more or less be fine "on our own." But I've spent several responses already explaining to you why the US has a certain interest in using coercive force against a hostile regional power that has a demonstrated track record of cutting off international trade and conducting anti-US actions in the region and is seeking to gain nuclear weapons. (The US has at least a weak interest and preventing all proliferation everywhere, to be honest.)
The question for the United States is not "do we have an interest in ensuring Iran does not gain nuclear weapons/cutting off funding to Hezbollah/punishing Iran for funding anti-US militias in Iraq" it is "are we properly calibrating the means with the ends" and "is the cost worth it"? If there was a button in the White House that Trump could press that would just prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, cut off all funding to Hezbollah, and ensure that nobody ever attacked US shipping ever again, it would be a no brainer to push. But we don't have such a button, so the question now becomes "how do we achieve these ends" and "are the costs and risks incurred by action commensurate with the benefits gained." The criticism of Trump pulling out of the JCPOA is that it was counterproductive to US interest; the criticism of the bombing campaign is that the costs and risks are not worth it (with perhaps a helping of the concern about the interest). These criticisms may be correct. But your own support for the JCPOA adequately demonstrates US interests.
Anyway, if the US unconditionally supported Israel, why did we make a separate peace with the Houthis, one wonders.
Me: Yeah, in the United States there is a lot of support for securing the sea lanes
You: That doesn't seem right, most Americans don't like this other thing that had little if anything to do with securing sea lanes
Okay, I believe you. That has no bearing on my point at all.
I believe you are the one who is ignoring the distinctions that I make and lumping all "wars in the middle east" together.
You know, there were several US military operations in the region that were very directly connected to trade. They are pretty obscure compared to the things you mention above, so I can understand not knowing about them, but I've referenced them in our discussion.
Yes, the US could have "helped international trade" by paying off the Barbary Pirates too. (Well...if we hadn't been broke, anyway.) In fact, that was the default response at the time.
I don't know enough about the inside baseball of Iranian politics in the 1950s to be able to answer this question, but it's a very interesting one!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link