site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25890 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To sort of echo Daste's recent post, it's remarkable the lack of threads for the ongoing conflict given its historic implications for Culture War, but I'll keep the ball rolling for another update/call to register your predictions:

  • On Friday Donald Trump gave Iran an ultimatum to open the Strait of Hormuz, or else the US will target Iranian civilian energy infrastructure. Israel has enthusiastically supported the ultimatum.
  • Iran has vowed to retaliate against Gulf energy and desalination infrastructure if the US follows through on its threat.

It's very possible the next few days will be a turning point in history. I guess I will register the prediction of Trump TACO given any other alternative is too bad for the world to fathom. Yesterday Iran did enormous damage to the towns in Southern Israel hosting Israeli nuclear infrastructure (which actually does not fall under the oversight of the IEA in contrast with Iran's program to this point). The notion that Iran is incapable of following through with its avowed retaliation is bunk, given the recent strikes on Qatar gas facilities that will have long-term impacts on global supply of natural gas.

So what's going to happen tomorrow? All of the public signals point to Trump making the decision to totally destroy Iranian infrastructure in order to destroy the country. But Iran won't back down because it would be the end of the regime. So who's going to blink?

So Trump chickened out and said he’s making a deal, then Iran came out and said they’re not making a deal, then Trump clarified and said that actually it was Witkoff and Kushner, implicitly speaking to some third parties, who were relaying messages to Iran.

The markets are wobbly but I think this is the clearest sign possible that a unilateral Trump retreat is the most likely next step. If Iran keeps the strait closed or - more likely - extracts a hefty toll from anyone who wants to ship through it, that is something Trump can and will blame on others. He can say “we pounded them and killed the supreme leader” and that will be enough for the base. Gas prices can remain elevated but will trend downward over time.

@ me if this is all a feint in advance of a US invasion but I doubt it.

Marines are still on their way. I was expecting the opposite -- Trump announces a deadline, then before the deadline, there are strikes. But either way, watch troop movements, not Trump's mouth (or Truth Social account).

Theoretically, certainly, the Iranians could make a deal. But I doubt any Iranian capable of controlling the country is an Iranian willing to make a deal.

It's also very possible that Iran's left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, given the break down in Iranian government communications created by this situation.

I think this reverses cause and effect. Nobody actually wants to destroy Iran's energy infrastructure, because what would that even accomplish? It would just make lifei hell for their civilians, without affecting their military much. The real reason for this threat is just to remind Iran that we have this capability, and make them knock off their attacks on things like gas facilities or the possibility of attacking desalinization plants

At least in regard to Saudi Arabia, this does seem to have worked

Bear in mind there's a lot of propaganda flying around right now. All different sides seem to be spinning every event in the most climactic, dramatic way possible. So we have to be careful to separate fact from rumors and threats.

edit: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/22/stock-market-today-live-updates.html and now there's "very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East"

Bear in mind there's a lot of propaganda flying around right now. All different sides seem to be spinning every event in the most climactic, dramatic way possible. So we have to be careful to separate fact from rumors and threats.

To be clear, this is a direct quote from the President of the United State:

If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

There is no connection drawn between Iranian infrastructure attacks and American attacks on Iranian power plants, only between Iranian threats against shipping and American "obliteration" of Iranian power plants.

This is directly from the President of the United States, who by all reliable sources runs his own Truth social account. I don't understand how one can support the American war effort, and then say that to understand it you have to credit some statements by the POTUS, SoW, SoS; and discount others.

On the other hand, fifteen minutes ago as of this writing.

Good news everyone:

I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [sic]

We'll have to see how the markets open on this news.

I think it's just standard to assume by now that everything Trump says has some degree of boast and bluster in it. him writing '"48 HOURS" on his Truth Social account isn't some sort of legally binding deadline, its just his way of applying pressure to get negotiations going. Markets are massively up in the futures markets, so they seem to be taking these peace talks seriously.

Trump could actually do something pretty hilarious here which is blame the whole thing on Israel. Say that the over-escalation is their fault. They were completely unhinged (killing Iranian moderates, targeting energy infrastructure) and that the US was trying to get them to pull back. Say they're fed up and if Israel won't follow orders they can fight on their own. Just pull out of the war and say it's Israel's war if they want to keep going - we can't support them if they are not going to do what we tell them.

Whether the Iranian's gain enough face from this to break the escalation spiral I'm not sure. It would be a pretty big win form them - driving a wedge between Israel and US - but hard to say.

Looks pretty bad at the moment. Hard for anyone to walk back without losing face.

Such an action, while hilarious, probably dooms Republicans in the midterms to such an extent that it would be unlikely for Trump to actually try it.

Everything dooms the Republicans in the midterms.

That's not analysis. It's barely even sarcastic. I feel like every month there's 1-2 things that DOOM REPUBLICANS IN THE MIDTERMS and then the actual polling needle barely budges.

Maybe everything is just fully too stupid for mere "events" to make anyone update.

A sudden face-heel turn on Israel is a significantly larger action than anything you've seen in the paper up until now.

Betrayal is the most difficult move to execute in a democracy, because the people who support the betrayal rarely trust you afterward. The anti-war caucus will not trust Trump after he flips on Israel, while the zionist contingent will be demoralized and may stay home.

It's not really possible to fully model something like this because it's basically never happened before. The closest I can think of is maybe LBJ on civil rights, or HW Bush on taxes? But even those weren't nearly as clear value betrayals as this would be.

The anti-war caucus will not trust Trump after he flips on Israel

I assume you mean the anti-war caucus of the Republican Party, seeing as the anti-war Dems have never trusted—and will never trust—Trump in the first place. In which case, why? Trump kept his promise of no forever wars in his first term, and for most of his second term. The recent Iran action is an aberration but so long as he doesn’t get bogged down in a quagmire, the America First anti-war types should be perfectly willing to turn a blind eye, as they have on Venezuela.

Trump kept his promise of no forever wars in his first term, and for most of his second term. The recent Iran action is an aberration

This is one of those "but you fuck one goat..." situations, though. The biggest difference by far is the jump from zero to one.

and for most of his second term.

Homeboy, we're not even halfway through the second term, and we've committed to at least two acts of war (I'll spot you bombing Yemen).

...seeing as the anti-war Dems have never trusted—and will never trust—Trump in the first place.

Which is my point, betraying your base to appeal to your enemies by turning on Israel won't work, because your enemies won't trust you anyway.

and we've committed to at least two acts of war (I'll spot you bombing Yemen)

And my point is that—as evidenced by the deafening silence around the Venezuela operation—the so-called anti-war Republicans are not actually anti-war tout court, they’re really just anti-quagmire, especially in the Middle East, double-especially when it comes to quagmires (that they perceive as being) in Israel’s interests rather than America’s. The recent resignation letter of the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center encapsulates this mentality nicely.

If Trump immediately pulls out of Iran and declares “mission accomplished, American interests secured, no boots on the ground, no occupation”, that portion of his base should be willing to cut him some slack, just as they did with Venezuela, regardless of the actual merits of his claims, and of the fact that this is just another instance of TACO. Bonus points if he loudly and publicly turns on Netanyahu and accuses Israel of perfidiously trying to manipulate us into another forever war (which I think is unlikely, but supposedly Trump is aware that after the Boomers, support for Israel is cratering across the political spectrum)

A sudden face-heel turn on Israel is a significantly larger action than anything you've seen in the paper up until now.

Yes, there is no way Republicans would accept a complete 180 like this. What next? Bombing Ira... oh, wait...

Big difference. Nobody likes Iran, a large contingent of American prots actively believe that supporting Israel is a religious obligation. I drive by (biblically ignorant, in my opinion) billboards reading "God blesses those who bless Israel" on a daily basis.

I suppose there's "blessed are the peacemakers" as a counter, but everyone ignores that anyway, except Pope Leo.

Also, I think Republican support for the Iran war is overstated. 80-85% of Republicans support the strikes in most polls I've seen, the equivalent numbers in Iraq were 95%+ (Lizardman range) for the first few years of the war. Losing 10-15% support from your own party is pretty bad, though it's just issue polling.

I had firm belief that Ukraine would sue for peace after they weathered the shock of the initial attack by Russia. But it turns out you can just ignore the obvious disaster on the horizon and condemn hundreds of thousands of men to their useless deaths.

Honestly feels like reality lost its training wheels after that and anything is now possible regardless of how obviously stupid it is.

That being said, I'd wager against further escalation in this specific direction if only because Israel is allegedly very vulnerable to retaliation. Now, how true is that? I don't know. Maybe the Israeli government has tunnel vision on the idea that this is their final chance to knock Iran down a peg, so the risk is worth it.

My prediction is Trump will bomb something else and successfully pivot to that being a victory.

They've negotiated but Russia hasn't offered terms Ukraine would accept. People up to JD Vance himself have assumed Russia will accept some sort of armistice on the line of control but they won't. The Trump administration offered this and Russia refused. Given the state of the front it's very unclear "disaster' is on the horizon. Either side could collapse tomorrow or they could continue another two years. Russia doesn't actually have a massive numerical advantage because Ukraine has a draft and they don't so it's far from clear they have an inventible victory. Regardless their terms are Ukraine giving up significant land that Russia doesn't control and that's a nonstarter the Ukrainian government would get lynched if they accepted that.

I had firm belief that Ukraine would sue for peace after they weathered the shock of the initial attack by Russia. But it turns out you can just ignore the obvious disaster on the horizon and condemn hundreds of thousands of men to their useless deaths.

The problem with your preferred strategy, which I might paraphrase as "surrender immediately when it becomes obvious that you will lose in the long run" is that it is not a dominant strategy. If your medieval city surrenders to every approaching army which could lay siege to it, then expect every general to sack your city at every opportunity he gets at no cost to his army.

I would argue that Ukraine has had a tremendous success in one key military objective, and that is to inflict costs on their enemy. Now, this does not help them in this timeline (though it does help other countries at the risk of Russian aggression), at least not while the war is going on. However, if they had not had that pre-commitment, if instead it had been common knowledge that Ukraine's plan for a Russian invasion was unconditional surrender, then they would have been annexed by a single Russian tank in 2014.

By contrast, Venezuela might as well have pinned a sign "please kick us and we give you oil" to its back. I am clinging to some slim hopes that they will somehow manage to extract costs from the US for their aggression, ideally timed to mess up the mid-terms (not that Trump needs more help with that), but otherwise they will be a US colony for the foreseeable future, with every US president considering a quick military strike followed by even more lopsided conditions from now on. At least there are no other superpowers in the Atlantic to take their turn with them.

I mostly agree with you in the context of medieval or ancient warfare. Historical societies could rebound fast because they were essentially malthusian-limited: Even if they lose a majority of men, they'd just get them back in a generation or two. Whether you stay at the limit thanks to high infant mortality or dip below for a while thanks to war but recover quickly afterwards doesn't really matter all that much, not even in terms of net-deaths. Arguably, a decent number of the men were more trouble than worth anyway, so it might even be beneficial for the rest to get rid of them. But two can play at game theory, see the Melian Dialogue, so you shouldn't discount the alternative even back then.

Ukraine's behaviour is also beneficial for me, as a cynical european who wants them to bleed russia as much as possible to reduce the chance of them starting a war against us. It's apparently also what Ukraine wants, so they should get our support, and we're in no position to talk them out of it. But for themselves it's basically suicide if you look at the numbers. Lots of dead, mostly men. Lots of emigration, mostly women, and I'd be very surprised if more than a third returns, if even that much. The birth rate is in the gutters as well. There's no coming back from this.

Venezuela becoming a de-facto US vassal seems ... clearly preferential to this? It's true that I prefer the US by far to Russia already so it's hardly a symmetric issue. But to go back to history, there are plenty of independent rulers who swiftly surrendered or even swore fealty to a superior foe when the writing was on the wall, only to bide their time and come out on top eventually.

I'd argue you mistakenly have cause and effect completely reversed. It's not that surprising, since many Atlanticists seem to share your assumptions. I'd say the plain truth is that the only reason the Ukrainians keep fighting, to the extent that they do, is because they assume the West will keep supporting and supplying them.

I'd rather say that without western support, they would have simply lost some time ago already, so you're kind of right but I wouldn't say that this means my causality is reversed. I don't think that they wouldn't have at least tried to fight. It's more a case of reciprocal causality that is hard to entangle; I also wouldn't deny the obvious maidan involvement of the US either, which is itself a precursor of the current conflict. But there as well, it worked because the Ukrainian majority did lose trust in the russia-aligned government, and it did want a realignment towards the west.

The underlying tension is the definition of "The Nation" that is being protected or promoted through these wars.

Attalus III deeded his kingdom to Rome in his will, knowing that inevitably Rome would subsume his kingdom regardless, and this avoided violence and death in his population. He protected his population, and while initially they weren't Roman citizens, their descendants likely became citizens later. I don't have the classicist juice to be able to trace Pergamese(?) families through time, but maybe it's been done. Maybe, genetically, those families were better off over time, with more and better off descendants as a result?

The modern Nationalist view, on the other hand, is that cultural extinction as a unique ethnic group is just as bad as genetic extinction. Zionists would not consider a future in which genetic descendants of Jews were numerous, but they didn't identify as Jews or practice Judaism. Zionists would prefer a future of a million practicing Jews to a future of fifty million undifferentiated Jewish descended people.

Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians, to a future with more numerous Ukrainian descendants who speak Russian.

Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians

Were that true, that'd have at least meant a nationalist policy of tolerating the idea of autonomy and general otherness of the Donbass as a predominantly Russian region in character, at least before 2014. In other words, a compromise with Russian separatists. But, as far as I know, not only did this never happen, in fact the opposite was happening.

They'd prefer, even more, a future with more Ukrainians in a larger Ukraine, and they might not be averse to reeducating misguided Russian-speakers, or expelling them. Certainly, they aren't going to accept reduction of their borders.

Borders that were drawn up by Communist functionaries, ironically.

Bias disclosure: I am not convinced of the sacred uniqueness of the Ukrainian people, and think they probably should have stayed part of Russia after the fall of the USSR.

The problem with any national border is that it wants to be a bunch of things at the same time. Administratively convenient, contiguous, following clear natural boundaries, and containing all the X on one side and all the Y on the other. This can only be achieved by violence.

This war could be the violent birth of a real Ukrainian nation.

But redrawing boundaries and announcing they are not sacrosanct is equally fraught with danger.

It's also an extremely common trope of nationalists from Magyars to Israelis to seek larger borders.

More comments

The issue with Ukraine is that Russia would not accept anything short of unconditional surrender. So there was really nothing to discuss. Even now, Russia continues to demand areas they are not currently in control of. This would also not mean peace. The Russians will only settle for an armastice that would give them time to rebuild their military whilst demanding that no security guarantees be placed on the Ukranian side. If the Ukranians accepted this kind of "peace", most likely Russia would just attack again in a few years anyway, potentially with Ukraine being weakened and Russia much stronger. By then, the Ukranians might not fare as well as they currently are.

The Ukranians are in a difficult position: Unconditional surrender or keep fighting. Currently they seem to believe that freedom is worth the deaths. Surely, an American should understand this concept.

I thought Ukraine has sued for peace. But Russia has never offered anything besides everyone dies.

Not "everyone dies". But "Ukraine ceases to exist as a separate political entity". Sometimes rather obvious versions of "We take half now, the rest later".

The humans there don’t die in a physical sense. But the do die in terms of having any sense of agency or an independent cultures. The best offer Ukraine has received is something like become the equivalent of a Native American tribe. You live but not as a society.

It’s never been that “stupid” for them to fight as a poster claimed.

Sitting here an American; the Revolutionary War was orders of magnitude stupider. It was over a tax of 2-3% and of course thousands did in war.

"Everyone dies" and "the country is conquered" are two entirely different things. Societies are not literally living entities, and even if they were (as fascism suggests), the death of the society would be "it dies", not "everyone dies". "Everyone dies" is rank hyperbole at best.

Hardware versus software. Russia was very clear they weren’t going to let Ukraine culture be Ukraine culture but would Russify it.

“I think therefore I am” - Rene Descartes.

If at the barrel of a gun I am forced to change how I think then it kind of feels like death to me. Russia’s goals were not to change lines on a map but cultural control thru violence.

All this seems to be the unfortunate consequence that was the disaster that was the Versailles “Treaty”. Nobody wants to become yet another fool like the Germans did in 1918. Politicians seem to all believe that if you voluntarily sue for peace, you’re a dunce.

I'm also going to put my money on TACO. The consequences for anything else are just way too dire, and even though I believe the Trump 2 administration is completely compromised by a foreign power I don't think even that foreign power is suicidal enough to take this next step up the escalation ladder - at least not before they've seen how US boots on the ground fare. Destroying all that energy infrastructure would make Iran substantially less attractive to rule over, and I think we'll need to see a lot more Americans coming home in boxes before blowing up all that infrastructure becomes a worthwhile option.

Consider Netanyahu has already said, just the other day, the aspiration is for Gulf oil to flow through pipelines in Israel. The fact is they want the escalation ladder.

I believe that was the original plan, but at the same time I think they underestimated just how effective Iran's missile campaign would be. The risk of Israel being completely destroyed or rendered effectively uninhabitable for civilian life is just too high - though maybe they consider that price worth paying in the long run.

On Friday

You're a day early. He posted the demand on Truth Social at 3/21/26, 7:44 PM Washington DC time. So we've got another day to go.

to totally destroy Iranian infrastructure in order to destroy the country

planefag on X pointed out that the US has Graphite bombs, which are designed to disrupt transformers without destroying them. So the US could cause power outages with repeated bombings until they decide to stop.

Hyperbolic a bit? No the next few days won't change the world even if Iranians start singing Flintstones, meet the Flintstones.

It is a boring local war to which US has committed tiny portion of its force, oil takes 3 months from well to tank so any shortages and price rises are artificial right now. With Venezuela secured - chances of physical shortages for the US is low - IIRC the US has capacity in this type of heavy oil. With Qatar gone Europe will import more LNG from the states. And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

Also there is no such thing as civilian energy infrastructure. It is not as if you can separate the electrons by spin and split them into separate conductors for the military and for the general population.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

I’m benevolently assuming this is supposed to be a reference to events after the US presidential elections in 2024 and you’re suggesting that Western European leaders should have assisted Trump in pushing for at least a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine. Unfortunately there is only one Western European government that is theoretically able to decisively choose not to antagonize Russia, doing so in a way that compels smaller European states as well; that is Germany, but they are beholden not to Trump but to the globohomo US deep state, which is their creator, master, trainer and indoctrinator, as the German federal state itself is an artificial construct of theirs.

No. I am referring to supporting Ukraine unconditionally instead of cutting Realpolitik deal.

I think the US deep state was been unconditionally supporting Ukraine and prodding it to prepare a revanchist war since 2014.

Probably but in 2022 it was the "globohomo" in charge of EU that were pearclutching hard.

Europe is clearly not going to be left without oil. The oil market is global, oil is fungible and Europe has money.

Its poorer countries without domestic oil that are going to be left without and potentially completely collapse if this drags on.

So basically no issue at all.

At this point the global trade of crude oil is essentially blocked.

Lol, no.

If your argument is that Europe is free to import oil from any place other than the Persian Gulf or Russia, I agree. But that does not represent global trade in any practical sense.

?????

There is a lot of hyperbole on this topic and it's easy to get lost in the sauce.

There are, however, some key elements that are a bit too big to just be swept under the rug.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

This seems like a pretty big swipe. Especially considering Europe has already been the garbage dump for all the trash Israel and American wars have caused in the middle east.

Is there no concern Europe will eventually just either have enough or take on so much trash it can no longer function as an ally? Seems like we are already seeing signs of that with UK's reluctance or Spain's flat out refusal to aid in the war so far.

It is a boring local war to which US has committed tiny portion of its force, oil takes 3 months from well to tank so any shortages and price rises are artificial right now.

Markets are forward looking and predicted shortages in the future lead to buying surges and demand increases now by people and companies trying to get ahead of it. This increased demand means even currently normal supply conditions can result in shortages, all because everyone is predicting tough times in the future.

Think of it like how a grocery store is emptied out when a major storm is coming up, or some of the shortages during COVID like with toilet paper. People are worried they won't have enough so they buy extra, which leaves less for others so they buy extra too.

With Venezuela secured - chances of physical shortages for the US is low - IIRC the US has capacity in this type of heavy oil.

Unless we want to export ban all the companies from selling abroad, oil shortages worldwide impact the US too. They'll need oil so they'll pay the big bucks for it and the corporations wanting profit will sell off to them, forcing domestic buyers to pony up more in response.

oil takes 3 months from well to tank so any shortages and price rises are artificial right now.

"Artificial" seems a strange word for a market. Typically, economists model market actors as rational. But rational people have a conception of the future, and how events in the present -- like an oil tanker stuck due to Iran blocking Hormuz -- will influence prices in the future.

Basically, if you own a depot full of crude and anticipate that supply will be tight in the future, you might decide to hold onto your oil -- unless you are offered a higher price than usual.

Now it is certainly debatable if markets are prone to irrational behavior, but a model of the world where the oil price does not move for three months until the tanker fails to arrive strikes me as naive in the extreme.

With Qatar gone Europe will import more LNG from the states.

Qatar is a US ally. Throwing them under the bus is not the typical behavior of the US, and will severely change the tradeoffs of a US alliance.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

This is actually not how the chain of causality went. When Putin invaded Ukraine, both the US and EU agreed that Europe should try to avoid buying fossil fuel from Russia to limit the cash flow for Putin's war. For the most part, we did. Now Trump became profoundly disinterested in Ukraine when he finally noticed that it was not an easy Nobel for him.

If the US plays "fuck everyone else as long as our needs are met", others will too. For Europe, Ukraine is a lot more relevant than Iran having nukes. Personally, I would just make a deal with Iran to keep the Straight open for ships to Europe in exchange for gas centrifuges. It would be the same "fuck everyone else" attitude you display. Why should we care about US interests in the ME if the US is unwilling to care about anyone's interests there?

This one is tough, because we finally had a security apparatus retarded enough to back Iran up to the wall without actually having the capacity to make it stick: If they (Iran) don't make trump publicly eat shit and look like a bitch, then they are long term fucked. They signal that anyone whose dick is long enough can come in and fuck them, and they won't actually do the thing that they always threaten to do.

It's do or die for them now, and as a cherry on the cake: I imagine having the global freedom democracy western values christlike love country doing strategic bombing on them would go a long, long way to reconciling the public to the regime: "Observe the compassion of the people who were going to come and free you. Your paranoid suspicions weren't paranoid after all; they do hate you and they do think you are less than human."

Trump on the other hand did a no look walk across the street like a badass and comically fell into an open manhole surrounded by flashing lights. Makes you miss ol' Donnny "I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.". Makes Rummy "I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty." look competent. We went from one historic brains genius foreign policy Republican directly to another with an 8 year interregnum of neoliberal technocracy and a 4 year interruption of senile pattern holding.

I mean I don’t think he’s going to TACO there. If he were, he would not be proudly shouting that he intends to do that. He’s perhaps TACO over tariffs in the past, but this is different because he’s being very clear about what he intends to do, and he’s positioning the thing so that the west looks absolutely weak if they don’t force the straits open. Add in that we’re mere months from midterms, and the public isn’t going to be patient if gas prices stay high, and inflation goes up by 10% in a month etc. It’s a situation where if he doesn’t get a big win quickly, the whole thing can blow up in his face. Backing down isn’t going to fix this.

I mean I don’t think he’s going to TACO there.

Update: he did chicken out again. Mimimi, productive talks, mimimi, five days extension. Nobody has reported that Iran opened the Straights, the deadline is past, so his threat was clearly not serious. Which is a good thing for the world.

My estimate is that the productive talks have mostly been with gulf monarchies. "Wise king Donald, are you enjoying the plane we gifted you? Please have mercy on us and do not escalate in Iran, lest we lose our infrastructure and can not keep sending you gifts."

Looks like Israel already fixed that.

Reports now on CNN, Iran is denying that there are talks.

Which, who knows, we could even have a situation where talks are going on but communication within the Iranian government has broken down.

Chad Centrist time: Trump uses a nuclear weapon (set for Tiny Yield) on Iran, then signs a treaty with them saying that they agree not to even think about maybe pursuing atomic weapons for 100,000 years and that the US gets a 20% cut of their net oil revenues which will be diverted entirely to finding a cure for cancer. In return, Trump agrees to Iran's demand to hand over 'hostile' media withdraw from the region entirely.

The big red button is generally not labeled "I win".

"They nuked us, so we surrendered" might be a plotline which was swallowed by the Imperial Japanese forces (who had lost a conventional war in any case). "The Great Satan decided to martyr 20k of our citizens, so rather than face further losses, we decided to pledge allegiance to them" is not something the Iranian theocracy could sell to the grunts in the IRGC.

Few people doubt that Putin has nukes, and few people think that NATO would start WW3 if Putin nuked Ukraine. Yet Putin has fought years of a very frustrating conventional war against them. If you are right, he is stupid to do that, he should just nuke them a bit and watch them surrender. Personally, I do not think that he was simply to stupid to consider nukes, but rather that he correctly concluded that they would not secure his objective.

Of course, even if Iran after a nuke turned into Venezuela, this would establish a precedent. At the moment, few middling military powers pursue nukes because they do not significantly improve their security situation. If nuclear powers use their nukes offensively to miraculously force surrenders, then that changes. After all, you do not need to win a pissing contest against the US to make nuking you unappealing. It is enough to be able to kill enough Americans so that whoever attacked you will lose the next election.

Please do not read too much into my actual political thinking based on a comment that starts with "Chad Centrist time" and is structured around a political compass meme but,

"The Great Satan decided to martyr 20k of our citizens, so rather than face further losses, we decided to pledge allegiance to them" is not something the Iranian theocracy could sell to the grunts in the IRGC.

It's very unlikely a bomb set to Tiny Yield would kill 20k people. Maybe if you intentionally dropped it on a populated part of downtown Tehran (in fact, Nukemap gives almost exactly that). But Iran has a target set uniquely suited for tactical nuclear weapons: all those big underground bunkers they've built and filled with ballistic missiles. From what I understand, the US has trouble penetrating them properly, although it can damage the entrances. Dropping a B61 in the entrance or having it bury itself before detonation would do more damage than can be achieved with conventional weaponry, from what I understand – it's one of the relatively cases where a tactical nuclear weapon might be able to pull something off that can't easily/at all be accomplished with conventional weapons.

Personally, I do not think that he was simply to stupid to consider nukes, but rather that he correctly concluded that they would not secure his objective.

It was reported that Putin did consider nuclear weapons, and it freaked the West out, although I have no idea if the reports that filter their way back to the US press are anywhere near accurate. I definitely think he would reconsider his lack-of-use if the US used one in Iran. Which is one of the reasons the US is relatively unlikely to use one, although I hope that Iran doesn't decide to start hitting desalination plants based on this line of reasoning.

At the moment, few middling military powers pursue nukes because they do not significantly improve their security situation.

This isn't really true, I don't think, nuclear weapons significantly improve your security situation, it's just that the powers that already have nukes throw a hissy fit if you try to get one. I also don't think it's true that middling military powers don't pursue nuclear weapons; most middling military powers (if you watch closely) have sort of collected a lot of the bits and pieces. Examples include Egypt (suspected of pursuing a nuclear program), South Korea (putting ballistic missiles on submarines for conventional deterrence, has nuclear reactors), Brazil (pursuing a nuclear submarine program, possibly as a convenient way to spin up a domestic nuclear program) and Saudi Arabia (stashed a nuclear program in Pakistan).

If nuclear powers use their nukes offensively to miraculously force surrenders, then that changes.

I do think this is true. But I also think that the last couple of decades have increasingly been an object lesson in "get nukes" if you think your security situation is precarious even without the US attacking Tehran.

I'm inclining towards TACO. Trump is at heart a businessman, why would he want to blow up all this energy infrastructure? He wants to somehow secure the oil, not wreck it. He's been badly misinformed by his 'advisers' but a man who constantly times announcements to game the markets should be relied upon to try and sustain markets.

Also, why are we treating random proclamations on Truth Social like they mean anything? He's declared victory several times, he's made vague nuclear threats, he's just making up nonsense.

But the whole thing has been one unforced error after another, so who can say what will happen?

It sounds like a negotiating tactic to put someone under pressure via a deadline.

I'm sure he wrote something similar in 'Art of the Deal'. Not sure if you can transfer the intended effect over a social media post in the context of a deadly civilizational conflict.

Trump wrote a book on the tactic and has spent 50 years living by the motto of "Make an insane starting demand and then allow them to talk you back to merely what you originally wanted". Unfortunately, that doesn't scratch the Orange man dumb dumb poopy head itch for people who can't model other minds.

Hence, the idiotic TACO meme.

Well he just chickened out, didn't he? He said 'oh we're having productive discussions, deadline is pushed back 5 days' while Iran denies any such negotiations and sticks to their position.

Orange man does seem to be dumb. He's been signalling weakness the whole time with these bizarre market-manipulation/weekend proclamations. Inconstancy and incoherence weakens your position in war of choice where Iran's strategy is to damage the world economy and outlast the enemy.

Iran denies any such negotiations and sticks to their position.

Perhaps Iran has activated a mosaic diplomatic as well as a mosaic defense strategy.

The backchannel talks between Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, were not a secret in the sense that the Egyptian Foreign Ministry had tweeted that conversations were under way on Sunday, 24 hours before Donald Trump’s late Monday deadline to start blowing up Iran’s energy infrastructure.

[...]

Yet gradually, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei opened up. The spokesperson said: “Over the past few days, messages arrived through some friendly countries indicating America’s request for negotiations to end the war, which were responded to appropriately and in accordance with the country’s principled positions – Iran’s stance regarding the strait of Hormuz and the conditions for ending the imposed war has not changed.”

(Link)

If the straits actually open, then logically the Iranians have chickened out. If Trump says he'll bomb power plants unless the straits are opened and then doesn't, doesn't it follow that he chickened out?

Yet gradually, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei opened up. The spokesperson said: “Over the past few days, messages arrived through some friendly countries indicating America’s request for negotiations to end the war, which were responded to appropriately and in accordance with the country’s principled positions – Iran’s stance regarding the strait of Hormuz and the conditions for ending the imposed war has not changed.”

Doesn't seem like much cause for hope, the Israelis will presumably try their hardest to wreck the whole thing. Negotiations at this point seem to be both sides issuing maximalist demands at eachother.

If the straits actually open, then logically the Iranians have chickened out. If Trump says he'll bomb power plants unless the straits are opened and then doesn't, doesn't it follow that he chickened out?

Sure, but if he wanted Iran to be a bit more flexible in negotiations and he threatened to blow up their power plants and they were a bit more flexible in negotiations, doesn't it follow that Iconochasm is correct? You can label his behavior whatever you want - Iconochasm is suggesting there's a pattern to it, and you are suggesting that Trump is dumb. A lot of this stuff is pretty opaque to me because it's fundamentally nonpublic (I don't really trust either Iran or Trump to honestly characterize their negotiations), so it can be hard to tell what's correct.

But I do think that Iconochasm is correct that opening with insane bargaining demands can be a smart bargaining position. I like his model of Trump's behavior because I think it's more interesting than the TACO meme, although they both offer predictive insight/an observation of repeated patterns. If Trump actually wrote 50 years ago "open by making insane demands and letting them twist your arm into giving you what you want" (I haven't read the Art of the Deal, so I guess I will have to take his word for it?) then that seems like decent evidence that explains his pattern of behavior. Note that this does not mean that Trump Always Wins, it just suggests that Trump does have a strategy. (Having a strategy does not mean that your strategy is always or even sometimes good.)

I also think "Trump is dumb" by itself is...kinda boring (we have ample evidence he's not; he's creamed other smart people in a presidential debate, for instance) and yields little insight, unless it's coupled with an explanation that explains why we should update our priors (e.g. "Trump is suffering from TIAs that impair his judgment.")

Negotiations at this point seem to be both sides issuing maximalist demands at eachother.

Maybe the Iranians read Art of the Deal too!

he's creamed other smart people in a presidential debate, for instance

Trump can be highly charismatic and adept at manipulating the media without being strategically intelligent as a President, without being a wise leader, without knowing or caring about details, without being able to gauge the competence of advisers and officials, without mastering the institutions he nominally runs.

I think people have an excessively Manichean view of intelligence. It's not that smart people are always better leaders. You can have an intelligent and hard working man fully committed to nation-wrecking ideologies who devotes his intellect to gaslight people to further his wrecking of the country... A stupid leader could run rings around him. Trump has done this at times.

But while you don't have to be smart to do a good job it certainly helps. Intelligence and good judgement is vital for making critical decisions and achieving good outcomes.

Would an intelligent president launch a shambolic tariff campaign against US allies, allies who at times are needed to provide the capital goods for American reindustrialization? Or even start this war that all the other presidents have shied away from? Even at the heights of US power in the 2000s they were unwilling to attack Iran for reasons that the administration is now discovering.

Or back in 2020, if Trump was smart he would've discovered or produced evidence of vote-rigging, not been found trying to produce evidence of vote-rigging.

If Trump were smart he'd organize a clear justification for the war, not have different officials give different adhoc explanations. Certainly not have Rubio out there saying that it was because Israel was about to attack, which may well be true but shouldn't be admitted. He'd explain what the goal is and how the campaign will achieve it. The campaign would be planned out in advance so the necessary forces were there, not bringing in Marines belatedly. He'd be consistent and coherent, not idly proposing that the US and the Ayatollah jointly control the straits of Hormuz, threatening to blow up power plants, walking back threats, saying the war is simultaneously over and needs to continue.

Q: You said the war is 'very complete.' But your defense secretary says 'this is just the beginning.' So which is it?

TRUMP: You could say both

It's dumb. The approach we're observing is a show of weakness, it gives the Iranians hope that if they cause enough pain Trump will chicken out. TACO is just an observation of this inconstancy, it's one of many obvious flaws in the pattern Trump has shown - sensitivity to markets. Even if Trump had been consistent, without the intelligence to formulate good strategies they still wouldn't work. Tariffs alone cannot industrialize America, you'd need judicious and well-executed industrial policy. Air war with Iran isn't going to produce regime change and will have huge costs, this should've been known at the start but wasn't. He needed a rigorous understanding of what can and cannot be done with various forces, considering the balance of power.

I agree that Trump has a strategy but it's dumb, based on false premises.

More comments

We'll get to TACO eventually, but it seems like not enough damage has been done to the economy yet for Trump to care or his handlers (please tell me there are handlers) to come their senses. Really should have just declared victory after week 1, and then if Iran kept retaliating and closing Hormuz it would be Iran's belligerence and not Trump's bellicosity.

Really should have just declared victory after week 1, and then if Iran kept retaliating and closing Hormuz it would be Iran's belligerence and not Trump's bellicosity.

It does not work like that. Bin Laden could not have declared victory after 9/11 and expected the US to consider the conflict over. From the perspective of the Iranian regime, the killing of the Ayatollah is alike to what 9/11 was for the Americans, something which has to be answered.

And of course, merely closing your national waters (though not all of the straight is Iranian, so that might not be enough to matter) to innocent passage would be a very low form of aggression, unlike bombing a head of state, for example.

Trump declared victory on day 2 but the key thing about declaring victory is that first you have to actually win... If you declare victory and the other side keeps fighting then you've lost.

Why would Iran cease hostilities only for Trump to attack them again in 6 months time, like last time? How are they supposed to negotiate with an America that constantly tears up agreements with them, with Israelis that bomb their foreign ministers, with assassination attacks when they gather to discuss negotiations? Do they want to turn into Syria, which can apparently just be bombed and invaded by everyone, which has virtually disintegrated as a state? Do they want to turn into Lebanon?

There's a hoary old cliche where people say 'the only thing _____ understands is force'. In this instance, it's not quite right since Trump is interested in both wealth and force. But the general idea stands. If the diplomats are assassinated or otherwise sidelined, then there can only be a military resolution.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats