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 -
No, that came after the Gaza ceasefire, which is what actually caused the Houthis to end their blockade. I thought it was pretty widely publicized that the Houthis tied the continuation of their blockade to a ceasefire in Gaza. I guess that would explain why you're the only person in the world who thinks Rough Rider was a success.
Which kind of proves my point: instead of wasting billions on an ultimately pointless campaign that exposed the limits of American military might, Trump could have pulled the leash on Israel and forced them into a ceasefire to get the same result months sooner.
Trump is the one who said it would take 3-5 weeks and from where I'm sitting it looks like if anything Iran's hold over the Strait is stronger than it was before the war. They're literally running all of the ships through their territorial waters and extorting them for cash.
Out of curiosity, if Trump negotiated an identical "deal" to Iran that he got from the Houthis and Iran continued to charge tolls or outright block everyone besides the US Navy would you still consider that to be a success?
The maritime.gov statement that I linked to went into effect 2/14/2025; the Gaza ceasefire (the one that stuck, anyway) didn't go effect until the fall.
Reporting from before the Gaza ceasefire but after the Houthis ceasefire also indicates that traffic levels through the strait rose.
Now it is correct that the Houthis said they were continuing to target Israeli ships, so, as previously discussed, it is fair to point out that it did not lift the blockade entirely. But it does not seem correct to say that the US actions had no influence on the Houthis.
He in fact did pull the leash on Israel, resulting in a ceasefire early in 2025, with the result that Israel broke the ceasefire after accusing Hamas of giving them the runaround.
Yes, and I think that was "optimistic" if we intend to pursue the war to a full military conclusion.
Probably not if that was the only understood benefit from the war, successful wars don't conclude with no success besides restoring status ante bellum. (I suppose technically the scenario you benefit might be part of a hilarious galaxy-brained play by the United States to increase its leverage on the global market.)
Now, you can have a successful punitive expedition without any territorial changes or what have you.
I'm not sure if you're ignorant or being actively disingenuous here but the passage on 2/14/2025 was covered by the initial ceasefire that didn't stick. So once again, you're proving my point.
and on the contrary, Lloyd's List reports that the ceasefire did basically nothing to increase traffic.
Regardless, what can't really be contested is that yanking Bibi's leash was more effective in opening Red Sea traffic than fighting the Houthis was.
Right, he could have kept the leash tight instead of allowing the Israelis to take actions that harmed his interests for basically no benefit. Israel is infinitely more pliable to American pressure than Iran or Yemen.
Objectively, the path to opening the Red Sea ran through Tel Aviv, not Sanaa or Tehran. Similarly, the path to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open ran through preventing Israel from starting an unwinnable war, not in committing American forces to said unwinnable war.
Well I would like to think I'm more ignorant than disingenuous...
Oh good point, but in my defense, you specifically said
...which wasn't quite right.
Your point is that Rough Rider "does not represent any kind of influence on Houthi behavior," but the Houthis and the US reached an agreement (that cut the Israelis out) on May 6, 2025, when there was no Gaza ceasefire, correct?
Lloyd's measurement (which only includes larger vessels) excludes ships that Admiral Gryparis might have included, but both articles did agree that traffic was still lower than pre-blockade numbers.
Lloyd's List reported in early September (so before the Gaza peace plan) that traffic was increasing, although incrementally, with August traffic increasing by 10% over July. Again, definitely lower than pre-blockade numbers, but the trend, I think, indicates that the May truce did nudge the behavior of shipping.
This might be the case, although I suppose there's more than one direction to nudge Bibi - the May 6th agreement between the US and the Houthis happened the day after Israel began airstrikes on Yemen, right?
I really doubt it's infinitely more pliable. I understand the point you are making, it's just unclear to me exactly how pliable Israel is at the end of the day.
In the short term, certainly. Over an indefinite period, as I said previously:
Of course it's reasonable to point out that that's a theoretical risk, whereas this is a real one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link