site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   26770 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Iran has allegedly mined the strait of Hormuz

Washington — Amid Trump administration demands for Tehran to keep the free flow of commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. officials have told CBS News that there are at least a dozen underwater mines through the vital passageway, according to current American intelligence assessments.

U.S. officials, who have seen current American intelligence assessments and spoke to CBS News under condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters, said the mines currently employed by Iran in the strait are the Iranian-manufactured Maham 3 and Maham 7 Limpet Mine.

I've seen a lot of discussion online about whether or not Iran would mine the strait, and it looks like it's happening.

I'm curious as to what is driving this. My understanding is that the Iranian military is structured so that military units can operate with a lot of autonomy if the chain of command breaks down. Is this a small, but official action, or is it the action of units who are operating with what they have in the absence of official orders?

What are the global economic impacts of mining the strait? I tangentially work in insurance, and talking to the Actual Insurance Guys, it seems like this is probably just as bad as regular missile attacks, if not worse. Do commercial ships have any way to protect themselves against mines, other than "don't be where the mines are"?

I've also been seeing vague rumblings in the news that non-Israeli Mideast nations may materially contribute to the conflict. Does this move the needle?

It seems to me that this represents a pretty significant escalation. While sea mines are not land mines, they are both indiscriminate area denial weapons that have significant risks of civilian casualties that can last long after the end of the conflict that caused their emplacement. They're hard to find and create significant anxiety for anyone who has to traverse the area.

Is this a good strategic move by Iran? I'm not an expert on global geopolitics, but my gut tells me it harms them more than helps them. Fighting a defensive war against the Great Satan put the Iranian government in a very sympathetic position with their neighbors, but shutting down one of the most important economic transit corridors in the world with weapons that most governments find distasteful at best seems like a signal to the region that Iran will drag everyone into the flames along with them. Theoretically, this might pressure those countries to abandon the US, but that's a high stakes choice.

Not especially mine related but a new anti-Trump pro-Khameini AI-assisted dis track has been released, allegedly sanctioned by the Iranian government (I'd like to see confirmation it's official, mind you).

https://youtube.com/shorts/7C_G756zLpw

It's not well crafted on any level really but it's catchy and made me laugh, I can't deny, despite the gravity (or really because of the gravity) of the global situation.

It also feels like beating Trump at his own game.

It's incredibly childish and hammers Trump on being a loser, instead of failing to live up to some democratic or presidential ideal that was never one of his selling points in the first place. I don't suppose a high-minded democratic opponent could or should get far with this approach but for an authoritarian opponent that wants to wrestle pigs, this seems like the way to go.

In its irreverence, it also subverts a lot of the austere extremism that I associate with the Iranian regime.

America should be invulnerable to these kinds of playground tactics from a pernicious regime, but it isn't, having surrendered too much moral high ground.

allegedly sanctioned by the Iranian government (I'd like to see confirmation it's official, mind you)

Glad you shared this video, I probably would have missed it otherwise. But I do have to say it looks like it's one iranian youtuber dude (listing location as UK), who mostly makes shorts of himself reading news in persian, who is also playing with making short goofy AI videos. If you treat it as "iran made this", I guess the rest of what you wrote makes some sense, but not so much if it's just a banger funny AI song/video from an online youtuber watching along from the outside like the rest of us.

Personally I'm starting to lean toward being a KMC-tier american chauvinist, but I can definitely still enjoy this track or Dase getting exasperated with american demons in flowery language.

I wish I could find better reporting -- evidence of it being 'official' is reporting that similar Lego videos from this creator have been shown on Iranian state TV:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lego-gta-social-media-war-iran-us-b2935537.html

And a recent article alleging this latest video is official: https://the-express.com/news/world-news/203115/donald-trump-iran-ai-video-reddit-203115

Hopefully more credible info will come out about whether this is a random UK YouTuber that Iran picked up, or if they commissioned it, or what ...

Fun video I thought. They kind of give the game away though with the message at the end: 'You will drown in our BLOOD.' Bro chill.

Funny and catchy, but too long and strikes the wrong tone. I would have thought, “look what we have to do to defend ourselves” worked well for Palestine, while, “lol, want us to kill more of your boys? We can do this all day,” is very provocative from a country as essentially weak as Iran. Maybe they just don’t like playing the underdog.

America should be invulnerable to these kinds of playground tactics from a pernicious regime, but it isn't, having surrendered too much moral high ground.

That was how I felt when Obama was president.

I've seen a lot of discussion online about whether or not Iran would mine the strait, and it looks like it's happening.

Mate, not to put too fine a point on it, but CNN was publishing on this 2 weeks ago.

I'm not one to condemn people for not paying attention to ongoing conflicts. But if you have seen a lot of discussion about whether Iran would mine the strait or not over the last two weeks, you were seeing a lot of discussion by people who were either low-information, in denial, or falling for (admittedly generally widespread) efforts of international governments and their media-allies to downplay true-but-inconvenient facts. Update priors, and past questions, accordingly. If you are wondering how the mines would change the conflict, you've had the last two weeks to observe the impacts. If it was a game changer, the game changed about half the length of the conflict ago.

Now, there's certain some interesting questions or discussions that could be raised from this media report... such as why is there a press surge now of 'old' news? Why did so many states and media try to smother the initial information in the first place, including CNN not revisiting it? Is there an actual new development on the ground, or is this part of DC kabuki theater as the Trump administration tries to move towards closing the conflict while the Iranians deny there are talks?

An international attention surge might have utility to someone. Or maybe something else has happened.

I'll offer a measured apology if this came off as being too harsh at the start. However, treating old news as new is a pet peave of mine, in part because it is such a classic propaganda technique used by the originators (which are not you) to get people to react rather than remember context.

There were conflicting reports about this, but that earlier report of mines seem to have been debunked unless the US was keeping it secret for some reason. This new one seems a lot more certain, telling us [exactly which kind of mines were laid[(https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-floating-and-bottom-mines-detected-in-strait-of-hormuz).

I've been spending most of my spare time sitting in hospital waiting rooms for the last couple of weeks. Geopolitics has not been on the top of my priority list, outside what's showing on the TV that's bolted to the wall

And that, good sir, is generally better life priorities.

Hear. Hear.

While sea mines are not land mines, they are both indiscriminate area denial weapons that have significant risks of civilian casualties that can last long after the end of the conflict that caused their emplacement.

This sounds like "both beating and maiming are widely considered unacceptable ways of disciplining children" -- one seems clearly a hell of a lot worse than the other.

The humanitarian problem of land mines is mostly anti-personnel mines, which is why the Ottawa Treaty bans them specifically. (Not that the US or Israel or Iran would care. Though the US is at least committed to only using mines which would become inert after a while. Or at least it was before Trump took over.) They are dirt cheap -- so you can spread them widely -- and more than enough to kill or maim kids playing in the wood.

Anti-vehicular mines can still end up blowing up school busses, but are a lesser problem because their higher costs makes it less likely that parties will distribute tens of thousands per square kilometer. I think typically you would target roadways and not place them randomly in the forest on the off chance that a tank wants to drive through between these two trees.

Sea mines are a different story again. Iran wants to deny oil tankers, so they need to be big enough to cause catastrophic hull failures. These tankers have drafts upwards of ten meters, so there is not really a point to anchor them too close to the surface.

And of course Iran also has the tech to make them smart (and become inert after a period, for example), but I don't know if they bothered.

Personally, if I were crewing an oil tanker, I would rather hit a mine than get hit by a missile. After all, there is no point to make the mine so big that it will sink the tanker in seconds. I imagine that typically, you hit the mine, take water, decide that your ship is lost and head for the lifeboat. A missile might kill you before you even know what is happening.

Even if Iran does use dump mines, I imagine the civilian QALY costs will mostly stem from the secondary effect of oil pollution from sinking tankers, though it might kill a few fishers (if there is anything to fish in the Straits). Seems still less troublesome than the attacks on oil infrastructure committed by both sides.

And of course Iran also has the tech to make them smart (and become inert after a period, for example), but I don't know if they bothered.

If Iran is charging $2 million for passage through the Strait, it would seem that there is some system that allows ships to pass through (or avoid) any minefields freely with a high degree of certainty.

I think they just left a mine free path near their coast. Don't want to pay and run it? Enjoy eating shaheeds, etc

Not that the US or Israel or Iran would care.

Neither would European countries that feel Russia will invade them. The norm against anti-personnel mines was promoted by countries which would not benefit from them. Once this changed, and Russia was again allowed to be perceived as a threat, the norm went away.

Incidentally, this is why I find accusations US does not care about international law, within the context of Iran War, false. US is waging a war as lawfully as anybody would. No country faced with such a situation as US is now, would act as Europeans did prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and forgo effective means of waging war for purely virtue signaling reasons.

The only credible accusation is "crime against peace", but that is a charge last prosecuted slightly less than 80 years ago.

I have to say that I have some sympathy for the Clinton administration position on land mines, which is that the real problem is not anti-personnel vs anti-vehicle but persistent vs short-lived, and that the US will not use persistent mines.

Incidentally, this is why I find accusations US does not care about international law, within the context of Iran War, false.

There are different norms in international law. I do think it is fair to say that the US is not deliberately targeting the civilian population. Nor are they using perfidy against Iranians, nor shooting with JHPs. (Though we could argue if the institutional failure around the school bombing amounts to what one could call a depraved heart war crime.)

But the understanding of the rule-based international order is very much that you do not start a war for a bad reason, or no reason at all, which is where the "crime against peace" comes in. Typically, leaders try to find at least a flimsy pretense. For Iran, Trump is not even trying to sell a narrative like GWB was.

US is waging a war as lawfully as anybody would.

Less lawfully than Russia, though, which makes the last 4 years of intense propaganda ridiculous.

I'm curious as to what is driving this

The impossibility of negotiations with the US and Israel. It doesn't really matter if Iranians have coherent command or not, even a midwitted officer can independently realize the payoff matrix here. Israelis will keep killing their leadership because the official Israeli objective is regime collapse or at least degrading Iran to the condition where it can be gradually collapsed with "mowing the lawn" tactics. American negotiators (Kushner, Witkoff) are now known to be a) incompetent and b) represent Israel first, so any possible ceasefire agreements will be immediately exploited to kill Iranians with more freedom of action, like the US has done to Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq after a recent ceasefire agreement.

They don't have moves that improve their situation left, sans imposing costs on the global and regional economy and hoping to provoke a strategically unsound concession via international pressure on the US&Israel, to genuinely win time and reestablish deterrence. It's a pretty absurd bet, especially seeing as neither Israel nor the US are directly harmed by the closure of Hormuz Strait and consider giving Iranians room to develop nukes (or even maintain a ballistic missile program) unacceptable. It's also arguably backfiring with GCC countries (though this is largely irrelevant as they have little offensive capability beyond hosting American forces and allowing the use of their airspace, which they've been doing anyway).

They don't have moves that improve their situation left

Well, persuade Russia and China (mostly China) to create real alliance. Explain to China that with their full support Iran could become killing ground for US like Ukraine is killing ground for Russia. Explain to China that when Iran falls, Russia will be next and China will be left facing Great Satan(TM) all alone.

Yes, we all know this is not going to happen, we know that only future for Iran is martyrdom.

They don't have moves that improve their situation left

I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy. They could even ally themselves to the US outright, or even to Israel!

And I know, I know, they're not gonna, it is to all intents and purposes as much of a ridiculous fantasy as "all Iranian weapon stores could spontaneously transform into rose petals overnight", but… on the other hand, no it isn't. These are human beings with moral agency and rational minds. In principle there should be nothing stopping them from just ceasing to be an oppressive warmongering theocracy, and then, miraculously, the rest of the world would stop trying to blow them up.

At some level I don't think we should lose sight of that basic fact when evaluating the decision-making ability of Iranian leadership. There is a right answer here, and although it's completely correct to start from the premise that they are simply never going to pick it, that fact alone should tell us something.

peace-loving

How can you claim they are not peace-loving? Have you ever looked at their previous wars? They had to enter the Syrian Civil War because America’s warmongering caused literal ISIS to pop up in their neighborhood; they had to enter the Iraq War to defeat ISIS after they took over the Sunni regions (and they were asked); they had to fight Iraq in the 80s because we funded the Iraqi invasion where they used chemical weapons on 50,000 Iranians. America, 6000 miles away, compelled them to defend their regional interests. I’m not even sure what the last unjustifiable war is that Iran participated in when you exclude the Shah. You might have to go back to the 1800s.

liberal

Women do not need a mahram to travel freely in Iran. This makes them more liberal than our ally Saudi Arabia, and more liberal than parts of Syria (something we caused). Women can also get away with showing their real hair, which makes them more liberal than many parts of Haredi New York City and London! There are major parties in Israel that are less liberal than Iran; shall we sanction them? Iranian women can divorce their husbands while orthodox Jewish are forbidden to without their husband’s permission.

They could even ally themselves to the US outright

They tried that. Their offer was rebuffed, perhaps because of the Israel Lobby. https://archive.nytimes.com/kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/irans-proposal-for-a-grand-bargain/

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA587314.pdf ctrl-f “grand bargain”

  • nuclear program cooperation

  • ending support for Hamas and Hezbollah

  • two-state solution

  • cooperation destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan

  • joint cooperation against Al-Qaeda

All declined. Our national security apparatus wanted it, Bush WH did not because they wanted to use an Israeli-funded militant group to foment regime change in Iran (MeK). And here we are.

There are major parties in Israel that are less liberal than Iran; shall we sanction them?

They haven't shot tens of thousands of protestors last January after being warned not to by the US.

They tried that. Their offer was rebuffed, perhaps because of the Israel Lobby

Far be it from me to accuse Israel of being reasonable either! Nor did I intend to claim that Iranians are strange evil mutants who have never considered the kinds of course of action I describe. Indeed, the fact that they did come to the table once is all the more reason to be disappointed that they don't seem willing to do so again. Bush was a long time ago. If they'd come forward with all those bullet points this year, would Trump have said no again, or would he have told the hawks in his cabinet where to stick it and leapt at the most obvious path to his Nobel Peace Prize that fate could hand to him on a gold-plated platter?

I should clarify as I did elsewhere in the thread that I don't actually support the current war. I just don't think Iran is remotely blameless for it, which is different from saying they bear sole moral responsibility for it, or that they left Israel and America no choice but to attack. I just cannot believe that there is nothing Iran could have done to deescalate once you open up the "willing to say on camera that uh, actually, maybe we're sorry we shot those protestors and maybe Jews and women and gays are alright and maybe America isn't the Great Satan and maybe it doesn't need to be destroyed" options in the decision tree.

They haven't shot tens of thousands of protestors last January after being warned not to by the US.

Is there any actual evidence of this at all? I've seen numbers ranging from ten to eighty thousand, and no specifics beyond that wrestler who beheaded police officers.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Iran says:

There are also significant disparities in reports of casualty numbers during and in the aftermath of the nationwide protests. According to a statement of 22 January by the National Security Council, 3,117 people were killed. Of these, the State describes 2,427 as “innocent civilians and defenders of public order and security” allegedly killed by “terrorists”, and the remaining 690 as “terrorists”. Figures submitted to the Rapporteur from non-State sources run into the tens of thousands, including reports from health professionals and information from families who visited overwhelmed morgues across various cities. A conservative estimate from 15 February records 7,015 confirmed deaths (at least 6,508 protesters including 226 minors; 214 security force members; and others), with a further 11,744 deaths under review. Even this conservative estimate is more than double the figures published by the State. The discrepancy between official and grassroots figures only deepens the anguish of families still searching for their loved ones. The Rapporteur stresses that even a single death resulting from the exercise of the right to peaceful protest is one too many.

I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy

These are human beings with moral agency and rational minds. In principle there should be nothing stopping them from just ceasing to be an oppressive warmongering theocracy, and then, miraculously, the rest of the world would stop trying to blow them up.

Haha. Holy shit man, get off your high horse. Could you, in principle, reform yourself into a sensible person? This is just laughably tone-deaf in 2026. It's not "the rest of the world" – you don't represent the world, this won't even work as a polite fiction, "the world" is overwhelmingly against this lunacy, and not because the world likes Ayatollahs. You're on the side of a clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupremacist theological doctrine, you endorse the second tier version of that doctrine due to being too low IQ to understand Christianity without sectarian perversions, you're ruled by millenarian fanatics worse than Shia Muslims. You openly and proudly commit perfidy, you bullshit all the time, and you're boasting of how these interventions are not even designed to create peace-loving liberal democracies but to, like, appropriate muh oil. Your democratically elected representatives are worse than their authoritarians. I'm quite serious, we can just take a glance at "them" and see that Iranian leaders you're murdering look and talk like normal white Europeans from a developed nation, while yours, authorizing those strikes – Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game (and unsurprisingly detest Europe and revel in harming and humiliating it directly and indirectly). There's a limit to how much you can avert your eyes from the nature of your society and people. Or is there?

Then again, I realize that talking to Americans is as pointless as talking to demons from Frieren, you're only responsive to kinetic and financial arguments at this stage.

P.S. (given the length of the ban, btw thanks for FINALLY dropping this blat and treating me like a normal user as I've been requesting, I feel the need to say this in an edit:) I would very much prefer it if @self_made_human did not disseminate my contacts on any external platforms, for many simple reasons, not least being fed up with condescension here, and also not having any valuable thoughts to share with mottizens. I'd rather you treated me as braindead.

But speaking of the patronizing discussion about being "fried", social media incentives, speculative real life struggles, clout etc.: far as I know, other people's feelings and approval have always had negligible effect on my posting, or generally actions. There are very few internet strangers who matter enough (mostly instrumentally) to deserve any amount of charity or patience, and a tiny number of real life friends whose opinion and goodwill I value above that of any amount of internet strangers. To be frank, I actually struggle with remembering or paying attention to people at all, it often takes me months to read DMs or mail or respond to calls, even with money, glory or other rewards on the line; it's a major problem that has cost me multiple communities, friendships and relationships.
There is very little change in my modus operandi anyway; the only difference is who/whom, my ire no longer being trained on people you're entertained to see savaged, fairly or not. I've gladly taken a permaban on the original subreddit for much the same behavior many years ago now, and would have accepted a permaban on TheMotte at any later point of time if that were the cost of speaking honestly. Not all communities are for everyone, certainly not this one.
My views on the US in general and this community in particular have soured in response to new evidence, such as Resistance Libs (which we've collectively hounded off here) having been, in my opinion, strongly vindicated (unlike my own sympathy for American conservatives), and not in response to having gained some number of "followers" somewhere else. What an immature idea.

There's just nothing to be said. If there's anything to apologize for, I apologize for my recent top level posts that attempted to force an unwelcome discussion.

Entitled misinterpretations of minutiae of my rant (eg "genocidal dehumanization" of Trump&Hegseth who don't constitute a genus) do not merit a comment.

So in the post which earned me the ban, one specific line that invited complaints, glib pontification about my being brain-fried by Twitter, and even concern for my wellbeing (eg from @Throwaway05) was:

Your democratically elected representatives are worse than their authoritarians. I'm quite serious, we can just take a glance at "them" and see that Iranian leaders you're murdering look and talk like normal white Europeans from a developed nation, while yours, authorizing those strikes – Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game (and unsurprisingly detest Europe and revel in harming and humiliating it directly and indirectly).

I stand by this line, and I believe it had aged very well indeed, complete with the claim of superiority of Iranian leadership material. In particular Ali Larijani, the butcher, the Kantian, had been vindicated, and killing him proved to be utterly futile. This is a triumph of the human over the bestial, reason over dogma, intellect and will over emotion and matter. Pretty clear-cut actually. I think Americans should reflect on this phenomenon, it's like their movies and cartoons, except they weren't the underdog protagonists.

The bolded part was labeled «Nazi talk», and: «Systematic dehumanization of someone you dislike and leadership figures of them is a classic sign of disordered thought processes that often lead to things like the rise of authoritarian states, ethnic cleansing, justification of deaths of people in that group (ex: Charlie Kirk).» Throwaway, being Mentally Well and Socially Adjusted, felt it prudent to only say that «the current admin has plenty worth complaining about».

I am obviously tempted to snark, but let's be civil. Throwaway, upon everything we've seen while I was out – do you think calling Trump and Hegseth, these two powerful men in particular, swine and worse – was undeserved? Do you think that after a perfidious attack during negotiations, Minab girls' school targeted by Palantir using SoTA AI and maps 10 years out of date and triple-tapped by supposedly Iranian Tomahawks, stealthily sinking a defenseless ship, «a whole civilization will die», «bridge and power plant day», «Death and destruction from the sky. All day long», moving goalposts and retroactively changing objectives of the operation, making up «regime change» with the regime getting unprecedentedly legitimized, lashing out at allies, withdrawing defensive arms from allies and freezing supplies to allies, insider trading, 30+ fraudulent declarations of victory and/or Deal to mislead the markets, bringing the global economy to the brink where SPRs would run dry and serious demand destruction would begin, and eventual concession of military defeat in Versailles, complete with thanks to Xi and Putin for not making it more pathetic – after this entire immense, destructive, disgraceful, fractally embarrassing, entirely unnecessary, wholly CHOSEN, heavily DEFENDED and RATIONALIZED here, shitshow that has defiled American reputation and deflated American mythos (not the LLM from Dario, which sort of saved the day) – …
…

do you think it was reasonable of you to give me a lecture on how I'm losing it, just because I expressed anger and disgust with what was happening and what it meant?

@aqouta do you still think it was my brain that got fried, and not of everyone here who treated this war as business as usual and a cause for armchair chuckling about… all manners of tedious war nerd minutiae?

@WandererintheWilderness do you still think Iranians have underperformed your standards for "human beings with moral agency and rational minds", and that Americans were more up to it?

And what have the warmongers got to say for themselves? @Shakes? @Iconochasm? I'm not even mad anymore, after all you lost, contra my expectations. I'm just kind of curious: can you process that this was a terrible idea and many supposedly cuckoo people who pointed out that the US will lose the war (like Scott Ritter) were, actually, straight up correct, at least?

And what have the warmongers got to say for themselves? @Shakes? @Iconochasm? I'm not even mad anymore, after all you lost, contra my expectations. I'm just kind of curious: can you process that this was a terrible idea and many supposedly cuckoo people who pointed out that the US will lose the war (like Scott Ritter) were, actually, straight up correct, at least?

America won. America killed a generation of Iran's leadership, destroyed Iran's military industrial complex, destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, and is now negotiating how to destroy the dust. Casualties, 13 killed in action, a plane was hit with an Iranian missile and landed safely, another plane was lost in an accident. An American pilot had to eject above Iran and America was able to infiltrate Iranian land space and build an airstrip to get him out while Iran couldn't do anything. Iran declared the straight closed and the Americans launched night operations to escort ships in the dark. America blockaded the straight and Iran started to run out of energy and food.

Months ago the war critics made all sorts of predictions about how America was going to lose. Iran would be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. They would toll the strait. America might suffer hundreds of casualties or suffer a dramatic naval defeat. America's allies would turn on it. Gas prices would rise so high that the global economy would collapse. Basically none of these things happened. War critics have simply continued onto the next set of predictions. Because the Iranian regime didn't completely collapse, and sanctions will be lifted as part of a peace deal, America is supposed to have lost. Whatever you guys say. I don't think any of you want to be convinced. I think you just want to hate America.

But I think the case is going to become more and more obvious as time goes by. America is building an economy in space. We have rockets that catch themselves in the air and wifi where there are no cell towers. We revolutionized energy, we export energy now. We are leading the AI superrace. We still have the strongest navy and the strongest planes in the world. Europe is falling behind. China can't catch up. We are building a next-generation tech stack the entire world will rely on and nobody else is close to catching up. It's an American century.

thanks btw, I'll be returning to this post. One note for now:

We revolutionized energy, we export energy now.

Fracking is genuinely technically sophisticated, but I just can't get excited about a new fossil extraction trick.

Chinese "New three" (solar panels, EVs, batteries) exports now produce like >$200B annual revenue., en route to 300. This is uncomfortably close to American fossil exports. I find one of these strategies of revolutionizing energy more compelling, technically and business-wise, and a good hint about the rest of the trajectory.

America won.

Ah. Very well, carry on winning then. This is what the Chinese call spiritual victory. Seriously though…

America killed a generation of Iran's leadership

Literally what does it matter? Why do you even mention this? "Kill some dudes" is not a meaningful military objective.

War critics have simply continued onto the next set of predictions. Because the Iranian regime didn't completely collapse, and sanctions will be lifted as part of a peace deal, America is supposed to have lost. Whatever you guys say. I don't think any of you want to be convinced. I think you just want to hate America.

that would hit so hard if war proponents didn't move through different war objectives.

Some did get fulfilled. I'm personally partial to this specific Truth:

There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. IRAN WILL HAVE A GREAT FUTURE. “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!).” Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

This, as far as I can tell, has come to pass in its entirety. Iran has chosen new great and acceptable leaders (Mojtaba Khamenei and his team); Trump even wants to meet with him. The US and allies will aid Iran in reconstruction, granting Iran (and Oman) authority over the Strait, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. Iranian military-industrial complex is fine (estimates for missiles and drones suggest they're not halfway done, whereas you are out of interceptors) and will be upgraded, given that there are no terms prohibiting that (which there were in Witkoff&Kushner's draft). The nuclear question didn't move much from their "surprising proposal" you responded to with assassination of Khamenei's family, and they had a decades-old fatwa on nukes to begin with. Americans acknowledging Iranian regime's legitimacy and committing to "not deploy any additional forces in the region" is as close to UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER for a superpower as one could imagine.

But I think the case is going to become more and more obvious as time goes by.

Yes, I imagine so.

whereas you are out of interceptors

I fear that I am going to be repeating, until the end of time, that just because you read something in a newspaper doesn’t mean it’s true.

What I mean is, knowledge in the fog of war is unfalsifiable. The real information about how many interceptors America has is classified. So is the information about how many of them we used. It would take a lot of scrutiny to prove that what’s floating around on the internet has any credibility. A lot more scrutiny that what I’ve seen on social media.

I remember, for example, when Russia was going to run out of bullets weeks into its invasion of Ukraine. Or when Hillary was so far ahead of Trump that she didn’t even have to think about him anymore.

So when we start factoring out these unfalsifiable rumors, it seems pretty obvious to me who won. America can threaten Iran at will and they have no meaningful way to retaliate. Their only recourse is to attack shipping on the Strait, which can strain the global economy but is not nearly as dramatic of a lever as had once been imagined. America is in such a different weight class from Iran that we have to start inventing hopes that maybe America’s super weapons ran out of ammunition and the Iranian rockets will definitely blow something up next time, any day now.

This gap will grow as America is the only power capable of building into Space and the AI frontier.

So when we start factoring out these unfalsifiable rumors, it seems pretty obvious to me who won. America can threaten Iran at will and they have no meaningful way to retaliate.

That's not how wars work, though. You lost in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and in every occasion you enjoyed vast military superiority by the end. "We can kill them, they can't kill us" is simplistic and part of the problem, which is a bronze age savage's theory of victory coupled with an actually cost-sensitive political and economic system.

As for interceptors, I find the alleged exhaustion rates plausible despite "classified" noise from your India-tier corrupt officials, for the following reasons: corrupt people are generally untrustworthy; we know 21st century America is generally subpar at physical production; we know that some arms sales were frozen and THAADs were harvested from Korea; we know that interception rates have declined over the war, esp. in Israel; we know the bases are wrecked.

This gap will grow as America is the only power capable of building into Space and the AI frontier.

I won't even argue the facts again (China is about 5 years behind in space and 8 months in AI). On priors, why do you believe this is even plausible? You must know that you have fewer people than China, fewer highly intelligent people, lesser talent allocation to STEM, less industrial capacity, less energy, less cutthroat markets, less… pretty much everything, except some legacy IP. Is this just blind patriotism?

More comments

For the record, you're definitely not mentioning all of the US losses there - the US lost or suffered damage to lots more aircraft (including even some that Iran managed to shoot down despite what seems to me to be a pretty anemic air defense performance, and others they hit on the ramp with missiles) and Iran seriously damaged or degraded a lot of American military facilities.

I actually tend to think that the facilities isn't a big deal, especially if Trump Venezuelizes Iran (what are we gonna use them for?) but it's not like Iran didn't get in a few solid punches.

Let's break this into three segments:

Factual correctness: important, but also not important. You can be right while being wrong because: discussion value-add and moral worries matter.

Darwin's greatest sin in my mind was never saying anything interesting, I would just assume his posts would be filled with maximally infuriating and inconsistent arguments as soldiers woke nonsense. Discussion rarely led anywhere useful. I didn't have to read his posts, I would read the responses and sometimes see something interesting but he himself was seldom useful.

I remember you being a high quality poster with a perspective and information that was useful for me to hear and I enjoyed hearing from. Of late I have not felt that. Many of us have been around long enough that we've become caricature of ourselves in some ways (I am certainly guilty of this). Yes some of this is that an anti-Western perspective does not flatter my biases. But that's not all that's going on here, I think most people would say that they feel what you write has changed and not for the better and that they have to pick harder to get to the meat. Only you can tell me why the change.

However both of those matter a little bit less than the moral worries. The way you are writing is worrying, it makes me worry about how you are doing, where this dehumanization is coming from, and so on. It's not always easy to spot internally that something has changed but a lot of people here who have seen much of your writing are like "okay what's going on here."

This community has been together for too long for me to enjoy flame-outs at this point, especially when I am worried that some topic (Charlie Kirk, Geopolitical Bullshit, The Joos/anti-joos) is having an active impact on someone IRL - both for real and in the mind alone.

Please take care of yourself.

Thanks for the clarity, I'll put it simply too.

People extend different amounts of charity to friends, to family members, to neutral strangers and to the hostile outgroup. This does not map cleanly onto political allegiance. For example I still nominally have friends of the Zigger persuasion, and either do not discuss the war and the broad issue of the… diminished credibility of the Russian national project, or try to make my points from the remaining common ground. Some friends who have Powerful takes on the need to eradicate Russian nation. There are also some people in this community whom I respect and disagree with, people with rich, coherent and defensible belief systems leading to different conclusions from mine, and I'd rather not shit on them over claiming something that I'd say disqualifies a stranger from having political rights.

But at the end of the day I'm a Sinophilic Russian who wants broader power decentralization. You're the kind of guy who can seriously posit that it might be "treasonous" for Americans to undermine an undeclared American war of aggression via criticism (which also makes you immune to the substance of much of the criticism, since the US has in fact lost the war for military reasons many critics had been bringing up, but your school of thought allows the causality to be inverted). Your epistemics and morality also appear shot:

The way you are writing is worrying, it makes me worry about how you are doing, where this dehumanization is coming from, and so on

In truth, we call it all off now, Iran will probably finish arming themselves and nuke a civilian population, likely Israel.

But at that point you have overt politicking putting American, Israeli, Middle Eastern lives (and maybe everyone else?) at risk because you want to slightly increase the chance you can spend two years repeatedly impeaching Trump.

Make the PR bad enough and we stop with the job half done and everyone loses.

No, not everyone loses. Just your team, which might not even represent the aggregate interests of the American nation. Your team's interests are not humanity's interests, they're maybe forgivable (though I don't think they are) but particular. "We need to win… for everyone!" is a self-serving argument.

In other words, you're a two-bit hegemonist, and hostile outgroup for me. When we talk about matters pertaining to your project and to mine, much of the meat you can find is poison, and vice versa; and just like you don't sugarcoat your assertions, I won't do mine. Did you ever say anything interesting? I don't remember, but do you think your cited posts, premised entirely on these self-serving axioms and warped morality, appear to be meaty to me, or just petulant, entitled chutzpah?

But I won't concern troll about your mental health. That'd be too self-serving.

Which of us is correct about Russia, Iran, and the U.S. is a different issue from the fact that you seem pretty heated by relatively mild discussion on the internet.

You can disagree with someone including about important things like religion and politics without thinking they are subhuman or wish you harm. This kind of black and white thinking always leads to bad things.

@aqouta do you still think it was my brain that got fried, and not of everyone here who treated this war as business as usual and a cause for armchair chuckling about… all manners of tedious war nerd minutiae?

Yeah, basically. I'm unusure how any happening of the Iran war is supposed to interact with the social media induced brain frying hypothesis. Like if somehow the war had ended unambiguously on good terms for the US was this supposed to be evidence in my favor? If it had ended up even worse for the US how would interpretation of your behavior have been shown to be more wrong?

As you've blocked me on X and have been banned from this site I have not collected any evidence that could have updated me on this subject and so my opinion remains unchanged.

Like if somehow the war had ended unambiguously on good terms for the US was this supposed to be evidence in my favor?

Yes, because it'd suggest that my opponents were largely correct to treat it as another culture war side show, and demand charitable discussion of American efforts and speaking of their leaders Trump and Hegseth as imperfect, maybe not highly moral, but rational actors with non-insane motivations, who have a plausible, debatable opinion on what's best for America (specifically, another war in the Middle East). And that insisting that the war is a wholly unjustified crime perpetrated by basically murder clowns is "TDS", "twitter fried his brain", or some such.

To be clear, I expected the war to end in Iranian defeat, but not really "good terms for the US". As in – probably ground operation, some more atrocities, more losses, high reputational damage, high economic damage, attrition of stockpiles, unmanageable conflagration in the region, dangerously inflated belief in capabilities vs China, and other assorted wages of insanity and malice that make it all not worth it. American defeat was well outside my model, so this is "winning too much", as it were.

American defeat was well outside my model, so this is "winning too much", as it were.

Yes, you trusted the experts, as we all did. Nothing to be ashamed of.

"Well, plan A (kill the Ayatollah and watch whole Iran collapse like Sauron's tower) failed, there must be plan B. The best and the brightest working for the world's first super power were preparing for this day for all of their lives, there must be brilliant plan B that guarantees success of this special operation!"

American defeat was well outside my model, so this is "winning too much", as it were.

I did not necessarily expect this outcome either, and I remember arguing with users here at the start of this war who were pre-emptively gloating about America having global unrestricted power to bulldoze everybody Chyna decided to associate with, that the good ol' US of A enjoyed such an overwhelming military dominance over virtually everyone else that they could just walk in, topple regimes and replace them with puppets, then walk away in slow motion while explosions detonated behind them.

Turns out none of these takes aged well at all. It was ridiculous hubris then and it's ridiculous hubris now, and at this point one would expect to see grovelling mea culpas from anybody remotely capable of updating their priors.

Eh, There's this kind of weird definitional game that's being played for what "winning" means. We've known that we have very little ability to nation build in the sense that we can use our military to get other nations to be governed the way we want them to be. Anyone paying attention to the other middle eastern adventures would have to conclude we cannot reliably do that. That this war was started with those aims was dumb and wasteful. But then there's this idea that Iran meaningfully "won" in some kind of conventional military sense which is just ridiculous. A whole lot of the arguments on this topic has been people with these two different definitions of "winning" hallucinating people who disagree with them.

If by "Iran won" you mean the US did not accomplish its war aims then absolutely, Iran won, and it seemed very plausibly they'd win from the get go. If you by "Iran won" you mean they have some kind of dominant military position then just no, they had the ability to take pain and sustain enough of a threat to close the strait.

I just don't really know what people are updating on in this conflict with respect to military might. The military executed its missions very well. The problem was our war aims basically required stoking something like an Iranian revolution to actually succeed which didn't happen.

More comments

My diagnosis wasn't based on the rough content of your post. I even mostly agree with the analysis of Trump and hegseth as contemptable individuals. I was engaging in the, admittedly often annoying, classic past time of discourse on the discourse. Why is dase crashing out so much more frequently? Yes, lib centrists are right about everything, especially Trump, but that hasn't changed. What has changed is the xitter algorithm.

And what have the warmongers got to say for themselves? @Shakes? @Iconochasm?

I was more "passively war-tolerant". War with Iran was not something I was actively rooting for, and if you'd asked me beforehand I would have urged against it, but I was willing to let bro cook and see how it played out. Both in terms of reasons for the war and how the negotiations are going, I think the degree of misinformation and chaff is so extreme that normies watching the news (including all of us) have little ability to distill a signal from the noise. Especially for the latter, as I expect everything from the Trump administration to be positional maneuvering rather than statements of fact, and of course the same has always been true for Iran.

In fairness, that's also pretty much how I interpret everything you say, and why I usually just skim your posts.

I'm not even mad anymore, after all you lost, contra my expectations. I'm just kind of curious: can you process that this was a terrible idea and many supposedly cuckoo people who pointed out that the US will lose the war (like Scott Ritter) were, actually, straight up correct, at least?

See, this is what I mean.

See, this is what I mean.

See what? You're basically hiding in the fog of war and proposing a deeply nihilistic epistemology that Trump's tendency to brazenly bullshit everyone makes every circumstance completely open to interpretation. I don't believe this is how this works. Operation Epic Fury had been declared Over in early May already, by the Secretary of State, who doesn't have remotely Trump's reputation. The US and Iran have signed - not announced, not "leaked" – an MOU which is clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective of the US, and a bunch of obvious Ws for Iran. Could Trump ignore it all, restart the war, and actually beat Iran this time? Quite possibly. Such things happen in history. But that'd be another, separate war. The terms accepted now suggest the US was pretty desperate for an off-ramp.

clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective

This assessment seems very far from defensible to me.

Trump on February 28 in his speech articulating the rationale of the attacks [excerpts]:

Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.

It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular, my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon.

They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message. For these reasons, the United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs or roadside bombs, as they are sometimes called, to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans.

And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It's a very simple message. They will never have a nuclear weapon.

Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government.

From the MOU:

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA.

I think it's completely reasonable to:

  1. Question whether the objective of preventing Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon will actually succeed
  2. Interrogate the degree to which the United States accomplished all of its objectives; there seems to be (at best) mixed or conflicting evidence that the US succeeded in anything that might be characterized as "raze[ing] [Iran's] missile industry to the ground" or "totally...obliterat[ing]" Iran's military or preventing their proxies from acting.
  3. Suggest that the cost/benefit ratio was not in the favor of the United States, insist that the war went poorly for the United States, or otherwise criticize the decision to go to war or the outcomes or assess that they indicate US weakness relative to Iran

I criticized going to war with Iran before it happened on here. I still think it's too soon to tell how things are going to fall out, so I've been withholding judgment, but my preliminary assessment probably wouldn't be viewed as exactly a pro-Trump gloss.

However, I think you are badly mistaken if you to look at a US declaration of war that emphasizes "no nuclear weapons," look at an MOU where Iran agrees "no nuclear weapons" and then claim that the MOU is "clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective."

Wikipedia gives the following incomplete list of objectives:

The Trump administration gave various explanations for starting the war, including forestalling Iranian retaliation after an expected Israeli attack,[84] destroying Iran's missile capabilities, preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon,[85] seizing Iran's oil and gas resources,[86][87][88] or regime change.

Oil and gas shitposting has obviously failed. Regime change, well, you see. Unconditional surrender, not mentioned, certainly failed. "Destroying missile capabilities" – significant attrition but that's a cope, Witkoff wanted them to give up on production, something absent from the MOU which even proscribes interfering in such matters. "Forestalling Iranian retaliation", worse than failed, it was caused by the aggression. Proxies – Iran had forced the ceasefire in Lebanon (thus, preservation of Hezbollah) to be the #1 issue in the MOU, if you go through the timeline you can see that this isn't really what the US wanted and not a win for the US+Israel either.

The nuclear stuff is the biggest sticking point, I agree. But the thing is, did Iran even move far from their pre-war position? It seems to me that they did not, in which case the US didn't even need the war to "win" here, therefore this is not an achievement of a military objective.

Iran has to take some responsibility. It has never published its seven-page written offer for a new deal, including the annexe, which was shown to Witkoff during the final round of talks in Geneva, despite calls from inside Iran to do so. Araghchi has said he hoped the truth of what happened on the final day of talks, 26 February, would soon become known. He could do this himself by publishing Iran’s offer – one that Jonathan Powell, the UK national security adviser who was present at the talks, thought worth pursuing. Kushner admitted a deal could have been presented that was better than the Obama nuclear deal secured in 2015.

It may also have been a mistake not to allow Witkoff to keep a copy of the offer, since he could at least have shown it to technically more competent officials in Washington. Witkoff would later describe their reticence to hand over the document as a “tell” that they were not interested in a deal, and were just playing for time.

However, Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association (ACA), said it was understandable the Iranians did not want to hand over their negotiating position given Trump’s record of publishing confidential material on his Truth Social web platform.

Also, Iran was talking about lifting 80% of the sanctions as their carrot. Now they get 100%, for much the same terms. So no, I think this is still American defeat, and the only way to spin it otherwise is to claim that Iranian terms were untrustworthy when originally proposed but are more trustworthy now that they know just how brutal and perfidious the US can be. I find that to be a pretty flimsy argument.

More comments

The explicit early war objectives laid out by Trump and Hegseth were

  1. Destroy their missiles
  2. Destroy missile production capacity
  3. Destroy Iran's navy, broader security infrastructure
  4. Ensure they never get nukes.

What kind of benchmarks would you consider success for 1 and 2? 80%? 99%? I suspect you'd call anything short of 100% a "humiliating loss", and probably even then. Their Navy is about 90% destroyed.

And the MOU is "an agreement to talk out a future agreement", but one of the points purportedly agreed upon is 4. Which is still very far from a done deal, and very much obscured in the fog of the negotiating table. And that describes the entire situation. This isn't some trad war where a total surrender happens at a formal event. Both sides are going to posture and threaten and build contingencies, likely for years to come.

I will admit that this whole ordeal has strengthened the conventional wisdom that airpower alone is limited. But "we blew up most of their shit and crippled their economy, total W for them" seems like a retarded and delusional take.

Trump called for Unconditional Surrender and made regime change a clear goal of the war from the get-go. That objective was clearly unachieved. Replacing Khamenei with Khamenei is a joke.

On 1, 2, 3 we don't have any data that shows a significant decline in capability. The ability for Iran to project power has not been meaningfully reduced in any way that is testable, as they still possess the naval/missile capability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, threaten their neighbors, and force a deal that benefits their proxy Hezbollah.

The problem here is that some people think this is Team Deathmatch rules and some people think it's Capture the Flag. The objective isn't to kill a lot of Iranians, it's to achieve some kind of strategic goal. The K:D doesn't matter, the objectives do.

More comments

Throwaway, upon everything we've seen while I was out – do you think calling Trump and Hegseth, these two powerful men in particular, swine and worse – was undeserved?

Compared to who? As long as it's the Iranians I can agree, but none of this is new for Western, or any other sort of leadership. There's another post of yours that has not only aged well, it reached out back in time and is perfectly applicable retroactively:

Well yeah, this is about culture. I am not appalled by the civilian death toll, 170 is rather low for a major operation as far as these things go. Pete offends me aesthetically.

It's all there is to it, and all there ever was.

As long as it's the Iranians I can agree

Call me a Western supremacist and racist but on Feb 27th I did not expect Iranians to come out looking more decent.

none of this is new for Western, or any other sort of leadership

Many old things are vile and, worse, not even effective. There's a point to having standards.

It's all there is to it, and all there ever was.

That's because it's not such a small thing as you try to make it out to be. It's not like Hegseth has bad facial features or that I get the ick. It's that his entire shtick is shit. His… ah, I've already covered that, didn't I. Aesthetics is correlated with holistic value. This is how a commander presents himself when he's likely to wage a nonsensical war in a reprehensible manner. This is how a secondary antagonist in a Disney adaptation of a children's fable looks like. Apparently, this is also how a guy looks when he's about to blow it. We're not on SlateStarCodex, but Scott would surely say that nothing is ever a coincidence, or something to that effect.

But anyway, there is something new to it. Again: the US has lost the war. So:

The perfect two-line summary of the entirety of pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump discourse, isn't it?

I concede I should have added the third line, for example: "and then Trumpists fucking lose, having debased and betrayed themselves for nothing".

Call me a Western supremacist and racist but on Feb 27th I did not expect Iranians to come out looking more decent.

Maybe you haven't been paying too much attention to them - I've been mildly impressed with Iran since the Global War on Terror days under Dubya - or maybe it's my own bias - I have nothing but contempt for western elites. Perhaps a bit of both.

It's not like Hegseth has bad facial features or that I get the ick. It's that his entire shtick is shit. His… ah, I've already covered that, didn't I. Aesthetics is correlated with holistic value.

My personal opinion on the matter is that paying too much attention to aesthetics got us Ursula von der Leyen, and the entire European establishment.

I see where you're coming from, and there's something to be said for the argument. I'll even add that I hope we end up with someone better after Trump leaves office. President Hand Grenade was fun as a protest against the treasonous ruling class, but someone like him is not viable when you want to actually wield power, rather than permanently play the plucky underdog.

I concede I should have added the third line, for example: "and then Trumpists fucking lose, having debased and betrayed themselves for nothing".

No argument there. I've been calling this whole affair a disaster since day one.

P.S. (given the length of the ban, btw thanks for FINALLY dropping this blat and treating me like a normal user as I've been requesting, I feel the need to say this in an edit:) I would very much prefer it if @self_made_human did not disseminate my contacts on any external platforms, for many simple reasons, not least being fed up with condescension here, and also not having any valuable thoughts to share with mottizens. I'd rather you treated me as braindead

Noted. It was just one person over DMs, but my apologies nonetheless.

This was unnecessarily rude and a ban was deserved. Twitter is a cesspool and you shouldn’t let the zero standards of basic politeness common there change your writing.

I never actually said I supported the current war, which I don't really. But you can simultaneously reject a vigilante lynch mob as barbaric and counter-productive, and point out that in point of fact its target was guilty of a pattern of gratuitously antagonistic and frequently evil behavior which they could have quit at any time and without which the violence would not have escalated to this point. It doesn't justify the attack, but justifying the attack wasn't the topic of the thread, it was Iranian leadership's decision-making ability.

Believe it or not, "Americans" is also a category of people you aren't allowed to just say "You're a bunch of demons" about. Criticize American culture, foreign policy, and whatever else you hate about America and Americans, sure. But when you want to criticize a group you have to ground it in specific behaviors and traits, not just label everyone in the group as crazystupidevil. (Yes, I'm sure you don't literally think every single American is crazystupidevil , but that's beside the point.)

You've gotten a lot of slack because you've been around a while and as unwilling as you are to claim "emiitus" status, we do weigh positive contributions against negative ones. But something has happened to you, and lately your contributions are far more negative than positive,.and you repeatedly curl your lip and bark angrily when told to chill.

I'm giving you 90 days in liueu of a permaban. Being perfectly honest, I personally don't care whether or not you come back. I got @KMC snapping at me for "driving off the regulars," but the problem is, some regulars have never contributed anything but shit. And others stop contributing anything good. Emeritus status only goes so far.

Believe it or not, "Americans" is also a category of people you aren't allowed to just say "You're a bunch of demons" about.

I take it you’ll also be banning anyone who does the same about Europeans, right? Right? (Who am I kidding, of course you won’t)

From what I can tell most American vs. European argumentation mirrors the U.S. Republican vs. Democrat argumentation.

Democrats believe or complain about Republicans being evil (with often "subhuman" "moral degenerates" etc.). Republicans believe Democrats are stupid children.

Neither is particularly nice, but the "evil" belief and comments has historically resulted in Very Bad Things. "Stupid" usually results in protectionism and infantilization or ignoring.

So you'll see anti-Republican criticism that is far, far worse in objective terms and therefore clearer to deal with - Republicans don't usually wish Democrats dead (although it happens), the other way around is super common on Reddit.

I don't think the Euro/American divide is quite so bad yet, but I don't see anybody saying Europeans are subhuman pig men (except for a certain genre of racists complaining about non-euros in Europe.

Do you have anything in particular on your mind? Being an European myself, Dase's rant strikes me as substantially worse than anything I've ever read about Europeans on here.

If someone posts about Europeans like Dase posted about Americans, they will at least get a warning, and if they have a record like Dase's they will get a ban, yes.

What is giving you this impression? To begin with, who is even going around calling Europeans demons, or equivalent?

For some reason, this mod-hat post (along with @2rafa's un-hatted post) showed up in my volunteer mod queue. Were these posts reported out of revenge for being banned?

Modhat posts often get reported by people who disagree with the moderation.

I was inclined to go lighter on him, but then you already acted and I remembered that Dase had specifically rejected special consideration and demanded that he be treated like the average user.

So be it. He can take his ball to Twitter if he's unwilling to play along with rather basic civility standards.

It's Twitter that has fried his brain. Like many he has succumbed to the pattern where he spends his time quote tweeting the most deranged examples of his outgroup which the algorithm recognizes and then serves him more of. He's built a machine that serves him almost nothing but idiocy that he can happily dunk on. He's built up a heuristic where he pattern matches any argument made to something stupid he's seen on twitter posted by someone who he didn't need to use any intelligence to dismantle; his wit and charity have atrophied from disuse.

I didn't want to get into his Twitter, but yes, I agree. After he became a reasonably big name and a sort of authority on AI/ML (which is justifiable), the boost in popularity only encouraged him to spout far less technically grounded hot-takes on topics like politics.

Twitter moderation is not The Motte's moderation (lol, lmao). I know I code-switch a little when switching context, I'm more polite and formal on LessWrong than I would be here. But most of the time, I speak exactly as I would on our platform.

That's the thing. Some people are innately in tune with our ethos, our rules don't strike them as unreasonable because they're inclined to act that way by default. Others don't agree, on an instinctual level, but follow the rules because of the value the forum provides them.

This is hardly a binary, on one hand we have we have consistently polite effort posters, and on the other side trolls and shitposters. I hope I land pretty left on that spectrum.

And now that I contemplate it, the main reason that I lurk and rarely comment or post on my Twitter account is because the pressure towards being concise or dropping zingers isn't my style at all. I could probably do it, but I don't want to. You can do long-form text and intelligent analysis there with some success, but it's clearly not the default.

So we have Dase, who is clearly smart and talented, but has an abrasive personality, displays clears impatience for those he considers fools, and holds a few rather questionable and strongly held opinions. When he started here, with minimal X clout, he was in an environment that encouraged the the good stuff and came down strongly on the bad.

But X? The negative feedback mechanism is nowhere near as strong. Some of his insults and hot takes took off, or caused him no real harm. And sometimes, he does have a point when he's mad, the number of idiots or hostile interlocutors here is not zero, let alone on X.

Further, he's shifted mostly to posting there, only rarely visiting our site. I don't begrudge him for this, not at all. But that makes the relative impact of a ban or a warning far less meaningful to him. He knows he can pivot to X completely (and I doubt he's the kind to make an alt and scurry back, he's too proud for that).

In other words, we're less important to him than we used to be, our validation and our negative feedback means less, and he's got a fallback at hand. Shame, I like him despite all of that, and that includes tolerating him despite his anti-Indian bias. I wish he'd clean up his act, I can't defend him anymore.

What is his twitter?

Edit: nevermind I think I found it.... what a sad sight it is

He has now blocked me on X : /

I don't know how to put this in a way that won't be interpreted, incorrectly, as condescension but I think he's going through a rough time and hope he can get through to the other side alright. He wrote some posts that I cherish and arguing with him in long form helped me think particularly about the AI race with China even if I don't quite agree with him on the conclusion.

What’s his X handle?

More comments

I... actually generally agree with your point, have been against this stupid war for the entire time it's been happening, and find myself similarly frustrated with many of the Amerikaposters here tribalistically supporting whatever they do. I am really not in favour of US foreign interventionism (which is long and storied) and have never been regardless of the partisan-political alignment of who's doing it.

The routine blanket portrayal of any country that's not in line with the American regime (not just Iran either, which I would consider more of a defensible position) as a dysfunctional backstabbing low-trust low-skill low-human-capital Third World hellhole is also not helping my sympathy for the pro-Americans, especially since it's so aggressively out of line with a lot of what I've seen in my expeditions travelling and living in many countries.

But yeah, this tone is going to get you banned. And I'm saying this because I think you're directionally correct and would rather you not get banned.

Look - I used to find your comments and insight to be a part of the special sauce that this place brought that I couldn't seem to find anywhere else.

But lately I've lost that feeling, and if I recall correctly you are a hair's breadth from catching a major ban.

I don't want that to happen, but you have to stop with some of this stuff. I'm not sure if it's meant to be rhetorical flourish but some of what you are saying sounds just as bad the worst TDS /r/politics user.

Yes the U.S. and the current admin has plenty worth complaining about, but saying the U.S. is a "clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupermacist theological doctrine" is wrong on so many levels that it has to have taken work to come up with that.

Calling Americans barely human? Come on man.

Like what the fuck are you doing.

If I was to try and deliberately write a comment to get me banned and convince Americans that Europeans have nothing worth listening to it would be like what you wrote.

What happened??????

You're [America is] on the side of a clearly fascist

Just being persnickety but I'm pretty sure a "clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupermacist theological doctrine" is referring to Israel.

That said, I agree that Dase is overstating his case. I personally always found his ideas interesting and his style to be an unfortunate barrier to the ideas, but I guess that's how he likes it.

Oh oops if I mixed that up but going on to add "you're ruled by millenarian fanatics worse than Shia Muslims" I'm fairly sure that's in reference to the reporting about U.S. leadership.

Also things like the later "Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game."

I mean that's Nazi talk. The level of dehumanization is I think new and totally collapses much of value of the contribution since you know it's all hiigghhhhly colored.

that's Nazi talk

Please, no, not that can of worms again.

If you insist, please lead with an opener about your exact definition of nazi.

Systematic dehumanization of someone you dislike and leadership figures of them is a classic sign of disordered thought processes that often lead to things like the rise of authoritarian states, ethnic cleansing, justification of deaths of people in that group (ex: Charlie Kirk).

I'm not a person who throws around Nazi very often, can't remember the last time I did it - but referring to people you disagree with as subhuman animals and drawing connections to literal demons, shit that's a pretty good reason.

You can be mad at Americans and their political stances without hitting that level of rhetoric.

It's not about Nazis specifically, it's about the modes of thought that lead to behaviors the Nazis are famous for. "That's Khmer Rouge" thinking or "that's woke thinking" are equally appropriate.

More comments

I mean that's Nazi talk

"Hegseth, Trump" isn't a demographic category lol. Individual people can be (and are, case in point) aptly described as degenerate swine regardless of the political ideology of the person doing the describing.

See my response to Southkraut.

Sure. I just had the bit of my brain light up that goes, "No! Somebody on the internet has made an easily-correctible error!"

The millenarian bit does seem to be at least partly real, though I'm quite prepared to believe it's over-reported.

No worries, at least as of late I remember good faith engagement from you so no frustration on my part.

With respect to the millenarian bit I don't believe that at all, I haven't really heard it mentioned outside the typical TDS crowd and the amount of nonsense and propaganda right now is incredible and people are very fooled.

I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy.

When we talk about Iran in this debate, we talk about Iranian state and regime, not ordinary Iranian people.

As analogy, when wargamer nerds debate: "If you were Napoleon and it was morning 18 June 1815, what would be your optimal moves?" no one would answer "Just surrender, end this pointless bloodshed, let the soldiers go home back to their moms".

no one would answer "Just surrender, end this pointless bloodshed, let the soldiers go home back to their moms".

Thought to be fair that would make for a banger of a song

I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy.

Contemporary Iran's origin story is the US staging a coup there, and imposing a dictator. Why should anyone believe "democracy" would somehow save them?

In principle there should be nothing stopping them from just ceasing to be an oppressive warmongering theocracy,

People who start wars look ridiculous calling others "warmongers".

Inverse cause and effect. That origin story is selected by the regime to back up their diplomatic decisions, rather than their diplomatic decisions being caused by the origin story.

A counter-coup that would have almost certainly played out the same way without US involvement after the sham parliamentary dissolution referendum made it almost inevitable is not a good basis for starting up an eternal blood feud 26 years later. There's so many other similar (really worse) slights Iran could choose to blood feud over. To name 3:

1921 Coup, backed by Britain, that put the Pahlavi dynasty in charge in the first place.

1941 Soviet/British invasion of Iran and subsequent rural starvation

1946 Iran crisis where the soviets tried to sever a few occupied puppet states off Iran

Why not blood feud against Russia instead?

The US did not start this war with Iran, they have been at war with Iran for decades. Unconventional warfare is warfare. Proxy warfare is warfare. Iran has by-and-large been the aggressor in this war, but they do so in ways that are below the threshold of conventional war and usually deniable, which may be why you are confused about this. The Western mindset, for the past few decades at least, has held this idea that low-level conflict in foreign countries is just the normal state of the world, but any conventional conflict with uniformed soldiers is somehow beyond the pale. Militias can ravage a population and hold entire communities hostage, and nobody bats an eye, but a Western military uses long-range munitions on military targets and everyone loses their mind! The opposite should be the case.

low-level conflict in foreign countries is just the normal state of the world

But it is, it has been like that since forever. And it's not going to go away, so starting a major conventional war is only going to cause more surrering and death.

I'd be happy to concede for someone who wants to be concerned about both, so long as it's consistent. But as you say different forms of lethal conflict is still lethal conflict. That this is hard to determine parts of the conflict because of their deliberate and systemic use of proxies doesn't change the underlying point: there is no caveat to the right of self-defense under international law that says you can only act against proxies, any more than there is a word-cell series of claims that lets someone go 'I can hit you (indirectly), no hit backs.' There is no principle under international law that the other party must accept your denials of plausibly deniable proxy warfare: the determination of plausibility, and what to do with it, has always rested with the other party.

I generally don't contest peoples personal opinions per see, so I wouldn't spend much time or interest on anyone who wants to take the position on who 'started' the conflict. But who chose to 'start' a conflict is different from who chose to continue it in certain ways, and how, and there is plenty of agency open for the Iranians on that front as well as anyone else. There are a number of regional states that fought multiple wars against Israel who have chosen other paths, and there are an even larger number of global states who fought wars with the US for whom relations are anywhere from cool to cordial. Making hating the Americans and the joos part of your raison d'être is a thing a polity chooses to do, not something their chosen enemies chose for them.

So- with those caveats- I otherwise generally agree with the point that this conflict didn't 'start' in 2026. We are watching an air-campaign that has been a series of campaigns, from both directions, for longer than most members of this site have paid attention to global affairs. It is not the start of a long-war any more than the Iranian supplied-and-directed artillery campaign via Hezbollah that displaced tens of thousands in northern israel was the start, or the airstrike on Solemani when he was on his way to engage Iranian-allied militia groups in Iraq that off-and-on attacked Americans was the start, or the American invasion of Iraq as a neighboring security treat was the start, or the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentine was the start.

It is also not going to be the end of the long war. Personally, I doubt it was ever intended to be, but that is a post for another time.

There is no principle under international law that the other party must accept your denials of plausibly deniable proxy warfare: the determination of plausibility, and what to do with it, has always rested with the other party.

I agree. I think part of the issue is that Israel has been waiting for years to strike at Iran openly and directly. Partly because right now is a politically opportune moment, but also because a lot of groundwork had to be laid to set up a viable path to cross the hundreds of miles. During that time, a lot of people assumed that Iran's "I'm not touching you!" strategy was effective, that there was some norm or law which was preventing Israel from striking openly and directly.

There are a number of regional states that fought multiple wars against Israel who have chosen other paths

Agreed with this too. Iran doesn't need to become a peace-loving democracy, Iran's leadership just needs to find some other raison d'etre besides trying to destroy Israel.

Partly because right now is a politically opportune moment, but also because a lot of groundwork had to be laid to set up a viable path to cross the hundreds of miles.

Agreed on both of these parts. One of the frustrating elements of the early-war discussion was something barely discussed at all- the fact that both US and Israel have elections this fall. Trump was already more or less doomed to lose the Republican trifecta, but Israel was also going through a potential major shakeup. This was a political window of opportunity for both parties, even aside from other elements and potentially limited opportunities.

This is not a claim that it's an opportunity that should have been taken, or was right to have taken, or any such thing. But Israeli political calculus would be factoring the potential 6+ years before the next potentially favorable US executive, and the US executive branch that's been trying to settle issues (starting with Venezuela) would be measuring the window of opportunity in even shorter time frames.

Yes! Trump is legacy motivated and he knows that without some major shake up he's going to spend the rest of his time in office being impeached repeatedly.

This might not save him from the midterms, but it may buy him a legacy he wants.

There is a right answer here,

No, there really isn't - or at least not the one you're proposing. If you think that Iran announcing their complete capitulation and surrender would lead at all to a positive outcome you're fooling yourself. Do you remember what happened the last time Iran was a democracy? Do you remember why that changed, and how the Shah was installed?

These are human beings with moral agency and rational minds. In principle there should be nothing stopping them from just ceasing to be an oppressive warmongering theocracy, and then, miraculously, the rest of the world would stop trying to blow them up.

I'm pretty sure there are Iranians pondering the exact same thing about the US and Israel.

I doubt it. The Iranian people have significant support for the US and Israel.

Leadership is either too religious and thinks the infidels should quietly sit down and be destroyed or are going to understand that state planned terrorism is a dangerous game.

Imagine bombs falling on you daily, even if you dislike current regime you are not going to support those who bomb you and clearly have no regard for your life in the process. And they did not intervene when Iranian leadership was massacring protestors, they did when protestors already lost and with them any hope of overthrowing ayatollahs from within.

So that's the startling part - the Iranians I know are hellaciously pro-Trump and pro bombing Iran. They claim this is widely held with the country.

I imagine it will change as things progress, but it is true for now. That says something about how bad the regime is and it's one of the reasons I get frustrated with the discussion here.

One of my friends tells stories about how every day walking home from work she'd worry about wandering into a pop-up protest (and had done so) and then feeling for her life to avoid getting executed.

She is a nervous type, but that's a scary way to live.

The Iranian people have significant support for the US and Israel.

The diaspora does, and a few malcontents inside the country do. But they're probably few and definitely powerless, and thus irrelevant. Their older generations were basically all supporters of the regime, and their younger generations grew up drinking in the propaganda of the regime; I doubt there's too much discontent outside their version of the PMC.

Counter arguments:

Stats: "A June 2024 survey by GAMAAN showed only 20% of respondents want the Islamic Republic to remain in power, with only 11% supporting the foundational principles of the 1979 revolution."

Anecdote 1: I know some people in the diaspora who are recent exiters. Everyone they know both at home and abroad not directly connected with the regime is ecstatic.

Anecdote 2: I've seen footage of bombing in Tehran where you can hear people cheering in the background.

In my city that has a large Iranian diaspora, the "protests" are actually pro bombing with iranians carrying american and israeli flags it's surreal. The small anti bombing protests tend to be white college kids.

My favorite bit of this was all the pretty Iranian woman trying to learn Trump's YMCA dance a few weeks ago.

Although at this point as the realities are setting in people are getting more stressed.

You have made the point repeatedly that there exist significant portions of the American public rooting against America in the present war.

Do you think the United States would fall as a result of similar circumstances?

I'm not sure that's related to my point.

More comments

GAMAAN

It's an Internet poll issued through an anti-censorship provider. Very non-representative. Same for the diaspora. As for footage from Iran... the information environment is terrible, who even knows if it's real?

All of that is fair but it is what we have in terms of knowledge. We also have recent massive protests that required 1,000s of killings to stop. We also have a security apparatus observed in Iran that sure is looking like it was very hard to prevent an uprising.

Do we have any evidence for widespread support for the regime? Hiding and not wanting to get shot doesn't count.

More comments

I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy. They could even ally themselves to the US outright, or even to Israel!

While they're at it, they can institute a central bank.

They already have one.

Ally with someone who literally killed 160 little girls in the opening salvo of the war?

Why on earth would the French welcome the Allies as liberators? Tens of thousands of French civilians were killed during the opening stages of the Allied invasion of France!

To say nothing of Mers-el-Kébir!

I mean, I'm not even making a moral argument here, at least not in that second sentence. Just… they could do it. It sure would stop the war and improve their situation.

The US could be substantially harmed by the closure of the Hormuz Strait if we decide that it's a good idea to short crude oil futures and then the market moves against us.

Well you could just not try shorting oil futures in the first place, that's a pretty zany strategy. In fact, American oil/LNG companies stand to gain BIGLY from all this. Russia is banned, Iran is being destroyed, Qatar is already 20% down for the next 3-5 years, the Strait is closed. Your commodity exports are going to the moon.

Well yes, that's prudent to smooth out the shock, but in the longer term the US is entrenching its position as a fossil fuel producer and exporter.

It's also arguably backfiring with GCC countries (though this is largely irrelevant as they have little offensive capability beyond hosting American forces and allowing the use of their airspace, which they've been doing anyway).

They could totally pool together 100B dollars and offer them as rewards for the heads of 2000 strong list of the Iranian elite. There will be takers.

One point I’ll make here is that the culture of occupational safety is a lot different now than it was back in the 80s during the Tanker War. A 1% chance of someone onboard dying is not an acceptable level of risk for a civilian-crewed merchant vessel in 2026.

For a counterpoint: in WW2 once the Germans started losing roughly 2 u-boats a month they began drastically drawing back the campaign against Atlantic shipping. This effectively ceded the supply war to the Americans, even though Germany still had over 1,000 u-boats. Extreme risk aversion has been a thing in the past too.

Edit: Am retarded, disregard

For a counterpoint: in WW2 once the Germans started losing roughly 2 u-boats a month they began drastically drawing back the campaign against Atlantic shipping. This effectively ceded the supply war to the Americans, even though Germany still had over 1,000 u-boats. Extreme risk aversion has been a thing in the past too.

Question: At the time the Germans were losing 2 u-boats a month, from the perspective of the crewman on a u-boat, what were the odds of being sunk on any given mission to disrupt shipping?

The total death rate of Uboat crews was something in the order of 70% over the war, and half of the survivors were captured - the highest for any of the German branches at least. Peak operations were 118 or so boats out at one time, but then they lost 43 in a single month - Black May. I think @ChickenOverlord might be slightly misremembering the history here, the peak attrition was brutal and their scaling back of operations was after this point to prevent a collapse of the force and reassess tactics etc.

Even for the Americans the submarine arm was the deadliest branch of the armed forces - around 25% of American submarine crewmen in WWII died.

Honestly kind of crazy that half the survivors weren't captured. What did they do, row a lifeboat back to Germany? Wait for the Kriegsmarine to steam out and pick them up? I know there were U-boat-to-U-boat rescue operations but that's not exactly an easy feat either.

The other half of those survivors weren't of those crews that were sunk, it was of those that returned home safely. So 70% of Uboat crewmen died, another 15% were captured, and only the other 15% made it home safely.

I know right... I assume some of that difference might be crews who were recovered by neutral countries/landed on coasts where they were not captured/interred afterwards. But there might be a fair number of crews in that total that never were on a sunk U-boat in the end, for example they were on leave, training, rotations or whatever and didn't get a uboat posting again when they returned after they were all sunk, bombed or too low on resources to run in the late war.

I think that's also true on the Kamikazes, not all died as they didn't all get planes or missions by the end, and some tried and failed to find a target (you got a few chances to return before on like the 5th one or something you were assumed to be a coward and shot? However, some later versions of the planes couldn't even land, so you were committed).

Ah, I think I just completely misread what you meant by "survivors" - surviving the war, rater than losing a boat.

I think the survivors weren't necessarily people who survived the sinking of their boats, but rather mostly whose boats came home in one piece. Many of them would then get taken POW after the u-boat bases on the french atlantic coast surrendered, but those who were dismissed from service beforehand would just go home as civilians.

That's what I get for not looking crap up, yeah

The total death rate of Uboat crews was something in the order of 70% over the war, and half of the survivors were captured - the highest for any of the German branches at least. Peak operations were 118 or so boats out at one time, but then they lost 43 in a single month - Black May. I think @ChickenOverlord might be slightly misremembering the history here, the peak attrition was brutal and their scaling back of operations was after this point to prevent a collapse of the force and reassess tactics etc.

Thank you for this. Assuming your narrative is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt you), it seems unlikely that it was a matter of "Extreme risk aversion."

Not even for one owned by Greece and crewed by Thais? I think they'll find someone to take the risk.

You could certainly find someone. And some have run the blockade, maybe with bribes but still not officially allowed, but those kind of blockade runners aren't going to be enough to carry the global economy.

but those kind of blockade runners aren't going to be enough to carry the global economy

They would be if the rest of the world would support them rather than continue to insist on insurance rules developed for peacetime.

It’s actually less likely than you think. Even with the cost of insurance, the journey itself could still be profitable. But consider the risk of an attack - legal cases with the crew and negative press attention for “getting workers killed” (even if they volunteered) aside, the biggest risk is that you lose a ship you can’t replace just at a time when shipping rates might rise overall. New specialized tankers or other specialized cargo ships take a long time to make, you can’t just buy a new one off the shelf. So even if the insurance pays, you’re out a lot of revenue. All these things factor in.

They'd also have to find an insurer willing to take it.

At a certain price level, self-insurance is rational

Self-insurance isn't permitted, by treaty, law, regulation, and contract. You have to have P&I from the cartel, and once you are required to have insurance, you're forced to cede your business decisions to the insurers (or join the shadow fleet)

The shadow fleet, of course, has no such restrictions. The West may just be too risk-averse to win a war, because while a war is happening, you do need to continue to do things despite risk imposed by the enemy.

The WSJ published an article yesterday handwringing about the Dubai Airport remaining open. Yeah, like the country should grind to a halt because risks have unavoidably increased. It's that kind of thinking that got us COVID lockdowns, too.

Dunno how much it actually factors into anybody's decisions here, but the Trump admin's urgings in the spirit of 'oh the strait is open now, just sail, we've blown everything up and it's pretty safe now actually' and 'hey Euros/Japanese/etc please send escort ships, come on, don't be sissies' and related forum discussions of how doing otherwise is pathological risk aversion, feel a bit unconvincing while the US has a ridiculously formidable naval presence thereabouts, and keeps it way, way away from the Gulf, flying all the sorties in an expensive tricky way using tanker planes.

Like, I'd expect that those carrier groups include several of the very best ships on the planet for defending against every sort of airborne threat. If the new lethal warlike US Department of War visibly doesn't dare risk dipping a little warrior toe in the gulf, is it very surprising if most big slow unarmed tankers won't be that enthused either, nor the inferior warships of every other country. Maybe something even changes up a bit if the US actually brings in those Marine landing ships instead of leaving them hovering menacingly a few hundred km away.

It's not really the West so much as modern multinationals from my understanding who actually transport the oil.

It's not the multinationals transporting the oil, but the insurance cartel based in London. Which would rather pressure the US to stop the war so they can continue to collect war risk premiums with no war risk than actually sell insurance when there might be claims.

I had no idea maritime insurance was such a monopolistic cartel.

My understanding was that Iran was allowing limited passageway through the Strait from China, Russia and other allies. Maybe it's a little more complicated than the story suggests, because I don't imagine they would be able to get through if that were the case.

I tangentially work in insurance, and talking to the Actual Insurance Guys, it seems like this is probably just as bad as regular missile attacks, if not worse. Do commercial ships have any way to protect themselves against mines, other than "don't be where the mines are"?

I actually have a friend that works in supply chain and handles a lot of things related to freight and insurance. He's told me costs are escalating and going through the roof with what he's doing.

While I do not know if this is what they did, an obvious solution would be to mine the far side of the Strait and keep open a lane close to their coast. Allied tankers could still use that, but enemy tankers would be under threat from short-range missiles. From the WP map, it seems like the Strait is deep enough for tankers perhaps 15km from the Iranian mainland. There is a difference between coming within 50km of Iranian mainland at the closest and having a mine-enforced lane running for 100km closely to the Iranian coast.

Fighting a defensive war against the Great Satan put the Iranian government in a very sympathetic position with their neighbors

Maybe on twitter. But Iran's actual neighbors (diplomats, monarchs, officials) wanted Iran curtailed a long time ago. Iran is the rogue state out. Whatever official sympathy might still have existed evaporated when Iran started bombing uninvolved countries.

Somewhat more complex than this. Turkey condemned Israel and America as instigators more so than Iran. The former Saudi intel chief / ambassador placed blame on Israel and America (it is significant that he is permitted to voice these things publicly). Egypt’s Eid sermon made a suspicious nod to Shia-Sunni unity while the Egyptian military builds up in the Sinai. Of course what is said in public may not be the true feelings of the important figures in private. I for one completely distrust anything I hear about Saudi Arabia ostensibly begging America to attack Iran, given fog of war / Zionist leanings in press (helpful to shift blame on KSA)

Would you change your position if Trump said so himself:

https://x.com/clashreport/status/2036518889069183057?s=46

What countries did Iran bomb that were not US allies and did not have US military stationed on their soil?

Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq all have a US military presence, in some cases a large one.

If we accept that countries that host US soldiers are fair targets then this proves my point: all of Iran's neighbors were already hosting US soldiers and they have no sympathy for Iran.

If we accept that countries that host US soldiers are fair targets

I would say that allowing your allies to stage air attacks from your country is as good as a declaration of war.

If Mexico's federal government allowed Iranian drones to strike US cities, the US would likewise not buy their claims of neutrality.

Not that it matters, because neither side cares very much about international law.

I had heard that initially, several countries weren't allowing the use of their bases/airspace for the attacks, but that has since changed after the Iranian retaliation.

If true, it would be one of the bigger own-goals of a national defense strategy in recent memory.

While attacking a state you've already deterred from joining into a war coalition is certainly a bold strategy, it does have a few potential drawbacks. Such as providing a basis for more direct and open military ties that previously had to remain secret.

But there's also the throughput implications. Anyone familiar with the graphs of the strikes per day should remember that Iran basically front-loaded most of its launch capacity in the opening days, and was followed by a week of exceptionally suppression. Those first days were going to be the most significant opportunity Iran had to overwhelm the established defenses at known targets. Well, there's a rather significant difference in the military disruption if you throw 600 missiles in 3 days at 3 states or if you spread it around 6, or 9, and so on.

Of course, the war isn't over yet, and however it ends I'm sure there will be no shortage of people insisting it was fought the more reasonably way possible by their favorites. But absent a reduction of the arab states into Iranian tributaries at the end of this, I suspect that- if those basing denials were true (and communicated)- the costs to Iran over time may not be seen as worth the gains they thought they'd get.

The Gulf states are much closer to Iran than Israel is. And Iran has very limited means to target any US forces that are not located inside the borders of one of the region's countries. Many of the weapons Iran has are much more likely to successfully do damage in the Gulf states than to successfully do damage to Israel or to US forces that are outside of Gulf stats. This is simply because of range. Some of Iran's weapons do not have the range to reach beyond the Gulf states. As for the ones that do, to some extent the longer they fly the more likely they are to be intercepted.

So Iran did not have the option to use its full military capability against Israel and the US. It was either fire against the Gulf states or not use some of those weapons at all except as a deterrent.

This doesn't mean that firing against the Gulf states was necessarily a good idea. I'm just pointing out that the calculation is a bit more complicated.

So Iran did not have the option to use its full military capability against Israel and the US. It was either fire against the Gulf states or not use some of those weapons at all except as a deterrent.

If firing against the gulf countries ends up looking very stupid in hindsight, and retaining deterrence is something useful even in hindsight, you might as well say 'It was either doing something very stupid or not using the weapons except for something useful.'

Nor is your framing a particularly well structured either-or. There is the third option of 'not use those weapons against host nation infrastructure.' Or even the fourth option of 'not use those weapons against countries who did not give offensive basing and overflight to the Americans.' There was even a fifth option, of only using it against American bases, which are typically camps in the middle of the deserts. If that had happened, the response in, and from within, the gulf countries might have been far different. There's even the sixth option of allocating all the close end-weapons against one gulf state in particular, say the Saudis. There are a lot more than six possible alternatives.

I could go on, but I hope it isn't needed. Iran was not in a use-it-or-lose-it scenario, where if they didn't use the weapons now they'd never get a chance to later. Nor was there any obligation, requirement, or military necessity to use them as they had. It was a choice, and while it may have had a reason behind it, it wouldn't be at all surprising for it to be a bad reason that will look worse with hindsight.

It’s important to keep in mind that a sizable plurality of the actual population of these countries is seething with rage that their own governments are Western puppets siding with Israel. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Bahrain is a “constitutional” monarchy that needed Saudi troops to put down a popular uprising. Iraq is under the control of pro-Iran militias, partially because they are locally popular and partially because they defeated the previous ruler, literal ISIS. Egypt is once again a military dictatorship because for the two years we let them try democracy they elected an Islamist government (see also: Algeria).

They have been largely hosting US troops for decades as a tripwire against Iran and maybe a lesser extent Iraq decades ago.

The governments of those countries have no sympathy for Iran. I'm not disputing that, I'm just disputing the idea that Iran started bombing "uninvolved" countries.

Azerbaijan is the cleanest example. They hit Lebanon just recently, too.

Oman has also been hit, and is more neutral than the others listed, but has hosted US forces on occasion.

Azerbaijan is a decent example. And even Azerbaijan is a close Israeli partner.

Lebanon is more murky. However, Iran targeting anti-Iran forces in Lebanon would just be the same kind of thing the US and Israel do when they target anti-US forces in countries that have sectarian conflicts.

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

The IRGC is operating on the theory that the gulf is cowardly and the USA has ADHD. They may yet be proven right, but their target selection reflects a preference for efficient soft targets not precise political punishment.

The US and Israel are using the same standards. See the US bombing Iraq and the Israelis bombing Lebanon. The Israelis are hitting way more than just Hezbollah and the US are bombing allied but currently mostly uninvolved militia.

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

Laos and Cambodia were bombed by the US for similar reasons no?

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

It's the standard standard since time immemorial. Allowing military use of your territory is incompatible with neutrality.

The IRGC is operating on the theory that the gulf is cowardly and the USA has ADHD.

If you've seen a lot of Arab societies in military conflicts, military experts have pointed that out. Saudi Arabia remains one of the classic cases of the dysfunctional social issues they face when coordinating and launching military activities. It's not a thesis that hasn't been heavily assailed over time, there was a time around World War 2 when military experts abroad made similar criticisms of American military doctrine.

Americans love war but they have never understood it. Americans got their ass stomped pretty hard by the Nazis at Kasserine Pass and it ran throughout the duration of the entire war. All they really had were numbers and industrial production to overwhelm the axis, but zero in the strategy department. It was the Soviets that won WW2, not the Americans. We were the ones who tasked them with tying down and defeating the greatest army in the world at that time, which the Wehrmacht certainly was. But a lot of it still generalizes.

I'm less interested in the military effectiveness of the gulf countries than in the reaction of their civilian population to Iranian bombings in their cities. It seems to me that every campaign that I've seen begin with the assumption "the populace is docile, cowardly, Aristotelian natural slaves who will surrender when attacked" it hasn't worked out that way. Most recently, Ukraine was assumed by essentially every intelligent observer (including essentially all major governments and intelligence agencies) to be a fake country with a population uninterested in dying for a corrupt elite. That has proven untrue, to the sorrow of millions.

I don't know that the Gulf Arabs can convert popular anger into effective military action against Iran, but I'm unsure that the theory they will cower and sue for peace is a good one for Iran to set as their win condition. In the same way that I would caution against building a win condition into USA war planning that the Iranians will sue for peace as a result of aerial bombing.

It seems to me that every campaign that I've seen begin with the assumption "the populace is docile, cowardly, Aristotelian natural slaves who will surrender when attacked" it hasn't worked out that way.

Were you around for the wars in Iraq?

Yes. The USA failed to pacify the population sustainably until, roughly, 2017 when ISIS lost most of its territory there.

I would not say that was how Dubya and Rumsfeld drew it up.

ISIS and Saddam were separate enemies, and had separate propensities to surrender. It is still true that Saddam's forces surrendered a lot. (And the populace didn't really support either of them much.)

More comments

US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

What's odd about that standard? Would the US government not bomb all sorts of targets in a country that has a government that allows Iranian military forces to operate on its soil, even targets that are not actually Iranian military? It absolutely would, after all the US has spent two decades considering it standard to bomb any target in almost any country in the Middle East at any time. And that's not even when the US government was engaged in an existential war, as Iran's government is now.

The preference for efficient soft targets, to the extent that one exists, is probably largely caused by the inaccuracy of Iran's weapons. If they had US/Israel-tier military technology, they would have preferred to use it to kill Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and other enemy elites rather than to waste it on blowing up random apartment buildings.

The preference for efficient soft targets, to the extent that one exists, is probably largely caused by the inaccuracy of Iran's weapons. If they had US/Israel-tier military technology, they would have preferred to use it to kill Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and other enemy elites rather than to waste it on blowing up random apartment buildings.

I'm skeptical. What's your evidence for this claim?

That they're not completely insane. They have very different values than I do, and they are in many ways irrational, but their track record of staying in power for decades shows that they are clearly rational enough to understand that there are much better ways to use limited and expensive missiles (even US missiles are not infinite in number) than to blow up random apartment buildings. They'd love to kill Netanyahu, so I'm sure they would try to target him unless they were worried that this would trigger nuclear retaliation (a reasonable concern). After Netanyahu there are all sorts of other targets in Israel that make more sense to attack than random apartment buildings.

It's not that I think they wouldn't deliberately kill Israeli and Saudi civilians. Sure they would. But they could easily think of more impressive and consequential targets.

It's not that I think they wouldn't deliberately kill Israeli and Saudi civilians. Sure they would. But they could easily think of more impressive and consequential targets.

Well maybe I misunderstood you. What's a "soft target" to you?

Anything that is relatively easy to hit, whether because it does not require accurate weapons or because it is not well defended.

For Iran, Netanyahu is a very hard target. Civilian apartment buildings in a minor town in the UAE is a relatively soft target.

More comments

Basic logic? Assuming geopolitical actors are largely rational?

Basic logic?

What's the logic?

Assuming geopolitical actors are largely rational?

How would it be irrational for Iran to target civilians if it had the option of (1) targeting both civilian and military targets; or (2) targeting military options only.

The logic is that if you're in a war, you'd like to win it.

Wars are won roughly 100% of the time by inflicting military and strategic damage to the enemy's ability to wage war.

Terror bombing is now rapidly approaching 100 years of "not fucking working" and to engage in it is retarded.

How would it be irrational for Iran to target civilians if it had the option of (1) targeting both civilian and military targets; or (2) targeting military options only.

Because you have a limited number of munitions and you don't increase your chances of winning a war by doing 1.

More comments

While sea mines are not land mines, they are both indiscriminate area denial weapons that have significant risks of civilian casualties that can last long after the end of the conflict that caused their emplacement.

I don't know what type of mines they're using, but it's quite possible they are discriminate. The concept of remote controlled mines has been around since the 1800s. Depending on the mine you can turn them off, order them to self destruct, program them to pursue certain ships, etc.

I doubt Iran is using the highest tech mines available, but it's also not that much of a complex technology either that it's possible they have some way to deal with it later.

Of all the stupid things Iran has done, this is perhaps the stupidest.

I've heard of no end of third worldists talking out of their asses, gloating about a petroyuan and the imminent fall of American hegemony. To those people, I say: how the hell can a sea mine collect a toll? At least drones and ballistic missiles can be aimed. How does this help the Iranians, who themselves use the strait to commerce their own oil? Any hope of Chinese or European arbitration in the dispute is gone now.

European arbitration

The federal government of Germany is currently offering exactly that to Iran.

It's Iran that declines.

https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/security/iran-says-thai-ship-allowed-to-pass-the-strait-of-hormuz

The Iranians have established a safe passage between the islands of Qeshm and Larak in the straits. Friendly tankers can go through the approved sealane, perhaps after paying a 2 million dollar fee. Unfriendly tankers can be sunk.

I'm begging people to read more deeply about what's going on!

Was there ever a hope of arbitration? I figured China was laughing all the way to the bank.

I’ve heard no third-worldists gloating, for what it’s worth. Maybe that makes me lucky or oblivious. Most of the critics I’ve seen are in the doomsaying mode.

Stupid with respect to what? Of all the criticisms against American hegemony I've seen (and I'm not a big fan of it either), I've 'never' heard the statement you just made from "people talking out of their asses." At any rate, it wasn't Iran that was calling for a ceasefire most recently, it was the US. The media blackout in both countries is in effect and all sides are claiming everything is going well. But from the glimpses of Ritter, Mearsheminer, Wilkerson, Baud, Marandi, MacGregor, Diesen, etc. (people with fairly close connections to things on the ground) it's Israel who's the one really getting it's ass kicked and the US making itself out to be more the fool.

Nothing will create a global multilateral coalition faster than Iran indiscriminately making the strait of Hormuz impassible. You might as well declare war on the entirety of the modern economy. No, the world won't go along with a global depression just to spite the Americans and Israelis. Not even China. Not even Russia. Iran is diplomatically isolated in formal and informal terms and no one is joining them in their last, suicidal gambit. And if all of those intellectuals you've linked don't recognize the fact they're stupid - and wrong.

Iran has effectively already declared war on the entire world. It got most the way there back with the Houthis even.

I struggle to comprehend why the world hasn't already come down on them like a sack of bricks. But at least in Europe it seems our leaders are more interested in milking this for domestic TDS points than considering retaliation as an option. Even in the case of the UK which has been directly attacked by Iran for no identifiable reason. Our state media promotes the idea that Iran has no agency and Iranian attacks on everyone are actually Trump's fault, so maybe this is what Iran is gambling on.

Given a multinational coalition doesn't appear to be forming, Trump asked them and they all said no, and given that the squeeze in Hormuz got Trump to ask for a ceasefire, is it really so stupid? The Iranians calling the shots have a lot more at stake than the US and Israel. If they play this wrong their dead and as of now their government is in an existential state of total war it's the best chance they have. If they make peace without showing they can hurt the US they are dead men walking so why not do the gambit. It's their best shot at not dying from an Israeli airstrike.

The Russian government benefits from high oil prices and has already committed itself for several years now to withstanding economic difficulties in service of a geopolitical objective. I think they're fine with the Strait of Hormuz being completely closed. I suppose the Chinese government might pull some strings with the Russian one to get them to change their minds, but I wouldn't count on it. The Chinese must be getting a lot of schadenfreude from watching their geopolitical opponents seethe over the Strait, especially given that those opponents would rush to try to cut China off from its naval access to overseas oil if a conflict broke out.

The only problem with this logic is that Iran didn’t close the Strait arbitrarily on a whim. There are two primary culprits driving this policy. And ironically, China and Russia can’t afford to let Iran fall because of their own entangled geostrategic interests, in particular with China. International conditions that have shaped up thus far don’t seem to me at all to support the direction your comment makes. People seem to be eyeing other actors as the ones responsible.

I know that the UN is something of a meme in terms of policy, but as signaling in international relations you can't get much higher then that. Take a look for yourself.

https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16315.doc.htm

I'm not convinced that China or Russia are invested in Iran at all, if they won't even veto on a meaningless condemnation from the GCC toward Iran. Outside of the usual poke-in-the-eye espionage games against America, have Russia or China committed to any military or civilian aid to the Islamic Republic? What are these 'international conditions' you're vaguely posting about?

Who is Iran's great power backer?

Russia had supposedly been shipping (Iranian-design) drones to Iran, at least before Israel sank their (Iran's) Caspian Sea fleet.

You’re definitely right that I don’t take the UN seriously as a policy conductor, so I’m not going to put much weight behind that. They’re about as credible as the ICC’s arrest warrants.

I don’t think that Russia will sacrifice their aims in Ukraine to help Iran, nor do I think China will sacrifice its designs on Taiwan for Iran, but the commitments are real and they are there. Especially when you consider the energy relationship between Iran and China. Maybe Russia can supply some of that gap, but nobody really knows.

What makes you think Iran needs some major power backer at present? They’re doing quite well in this conflict on their own as I already pointed out. The real question is what cards does the US have to play that’ll turn the tide in their favor? It’s not like they abide by the UN charter at all. When you’re the world’s only superpower, you don’t have to because hypocrisy runs the show.

Nothing will create a global multilateral coalition faster than Iran indiscriminately making the strait of Hormuz impassible.

You would think. But they did, and the global response was "fuck you, US, for doing this". Then Europe backed off a little and sent a strongly worded statement asking the strait to be reopened and nothing more.

I doubt anyone seriously expected the Europeans to do anything. But indifference from the international community to the Iranian war is good enough. If China and Russian can't even be bothered to veto the Security Council resolution against them, the Europeans tut-tut, and the GCC is on side - it's just letting the Israelis and Americans do the dirty work.

Russian

This war is massive win for them

Is it? I know oil prices help, but weren't they reliant on Iran for drone parts?

Oil up is a gigantic win for them. Also any amount of sanctions relief is a huge win too.

I do not think they are reliant for drone parts any longer. In 2023? Most certainly. The tech/know how transfer was the real value unlock though. I'm pretty sure the Russians were recently shipping the Iranian drones via the Caspian Sea until Israel blew up the boat(s).

The other big win, and this is a huge win for China too, is interceptors. Every patriot missile that blows up in the Gulf or over Tel-Aviv is one less Patriot missile that can defend Taiwan or Kiyv. Interceptor production rates are so, so low. And the impending western shortage of them means that Ukraine won't be getting any freebies for a while.

More comments

If the GCC acted at all like the Europeans, the Iranian strategy of "if we're attacked, we'll shoot at anyone we can reach" probably would have worked a lot better. The Gulf states would be expelling us, embargoing oil, cozying up to Iran, etc.

Russia of course is happy because less oil through the strait = more oil sales for them.

You would think. But they did, and the global response was "fuck you, US, for doing this"

Why would you think that, and why should the global response be anything else? I get the "American hyper-agency syndrome" argument when it comes to the war in Ukraine, but it wears a little thin when we're talking about easily predictable retaliation in a war you started.

I shoot at you. In retaliation, you throw a grenade into a crowd. I knew you had the grenade... who is responsible for the grenade damage?

In other words, yes, this is still American hyper-agency syndrome.

If I have to shoot through a crowd of people to defend myself…

More comments

You are. You provoked a psycho (threatened his life, really) who in turn became hyper aggressive. The psycho is also responsible, but you absolutely carry part of the blame. This was a predictable result of your actions, and you did nothing to mitigate the harm you knew (or should have known) would occur.

Your position denies agency to the "psycho", and in doing so makes hostage-taking a perfectly reasonable strategy.

More comments

I shoot at you. In retaliation, you throw a grenade into a crowd. I knew you had the grenade... who is responsible for the grenade damage?

If you shoot at me from far outside my reach, and the only people I can reach to hit back are some of your friends who happen to be very economically important to you, then yeah, you're the one responsible for your friends getting hit. Your crying about them being attacked is roughly equivalent to hypothetical Iranian crying that you parked your forces out of range, or are using stealth tech.

Indeed. If you’re someone who’s upholding aggressive and hostile behavior of a party you’re on good terms with, then I believe we call that one “aiding and abetting.” You’re a legitimate target. It’s like a manipulative mother holding her baby in her arms at the same time she’s physically abusing her husband and egging him on to fight back. And then when he tries to defend himself, guess who’s the abuser trying to play the victim?

More comments

If you shoot at me from far outside my reach, and the only people I can reach to hit back are some of your friends who happen to be very economically important to you,

It is worth pointing out that in case the "friends" are also holding the gun, helping you reload the gun and hosting a bunch of your employees who help aim and fire the gun.

More comments

I've heard of no end of third worldists talking out of their asses, gloating about a petroyuan and the imminent fall of American hegemony

I've noticed that this is a pretty common sentiment among the college students near me. I don't get it. Do they genuinely think that a world where normalizing blockades of international shipping is one that they would actually want to live in? I like being able to afford food, and generally dislike freezing to death in the winter. What's driving the disconnect between them and me? It honestly feels like pure nihilism.

They don't care about blockades of international shipping. The petrodollar has been has been a boogieman of the far left for decades they are just happy to see one of their demons slain or wishcast it bein slain. The same way goldbug libertarians don't care what would happen to the economy if we switched to the gold standard.

Regardless I don't think this is normalizing anything. This blockage only happened because the US started a war and assassinated most of the Iranian leadership. It's not just a blockade for kicks. If the US did the same to Egypt or Singapore I'd imagine they'd react similarly and close their straits but as long as we don't do that I don't see any reason to worry. If anything the US blockade of Cuba sets a much worse precedent for what you fear. Iran did what they said they'd do if they were attacked, close the straights, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to avoid by simply not attacking them.

I don't get it. Do they genuinely think that a world where normalizing blockades of international shipping is one that they would actually want to live in?

If it (1) allows them to feel morally superior; and (2) harms their outgroup, then I would guess "yes," in the sense that they might choose such a world. They might regret such a choice later, though.

I've seen it first hand and I don't think it's Nihilism so much as a particular interpretation of Rawlsian Ethics that is almost a reductio ad absurdum.

My impression of is that they have this idea "Equality" that functionally boils down to "equal outcomes" which sounds nice in theory but it leads them to this weird theory of "Justice" where in the morality (or "Justness") of any act or actor is largely if not entirely determined by power differential. This idea of "Punching up" which is is a fundamentally noble act versus "Punching down" which is a fundamentally ignoble act.

Because the goal is equality, they feel they must simultaneously moderate "the strong" while elevating "the weak". Which again sounds nice in theory, and might even appear somewhat workable in a staid collegiate setting but it leads to deeply perverse positions when applied outside the classroom. Positions like;

  • Because society is immensely strong compared to any individual drug addict. Any action taken by society (ie Law Enforcement) against that addict must be presumed unjust.

and

  • Because Israel is immensely strong compared to HAMAS, and the US is immensely strong compared to Iran. Any action taken by the US or Israel against their respective opponent must be presumed unjust, while any action taken against the US or Israel must be presumed just and noble.

This can be demonstrated untrue by asking those you think hold to this belief system their opinion on Nazi Germany in 1945. Unsurprisingly, no, they do not flip to liking the Nazis once the Nazis are being unambiguously punched down upon. They just like Hamas and like Iran.

See my reply to @MayorofOysterville. Also, Rawls' Theory of Justice wasn't published until 1971, 26 years after Nazi Germany surrendered.

Does Rawls propose a statute of limitations on morality?

I am also talking about those affluent liberals. They do not believe what you claim they do, because they don't support the Nazi underdogs you imply they would.

No. Rawls does not propose a statute of limitations on morality, but it is kind of silly of you to expect people to be familiar with his work more than two decades before it was published.

I am asking what they would think of the Nazis in 1945 in retrospect, because most of them do have retrospective opinions on the Nazis still.

I really don't think you are modeling this correctly. The far left was still pro-Palestine when the Arabs were stronger than Israel. As a result of Soviet propaganda, and principles of national liberation. The original PLO and Palestinian cause was much more secular, much more leftist and inline with many other "national liberation" groups that the far left liked. The far left in general doesn't like Hamas and in in group discussions frequently blames Israel for creating Hamas and "tainting" the Palestinian cause.

Israel is also just in the far lefts outgroup in fact it's one of the most hated outgroups they have. Just like in the original I can tolerate anything but the outgroup they can tolerate Hamas even if they don't love them but have a burning hatred of Israel. It's not a function of power dynamics if the Palestinians somehow came out on top and actually did drive the Jews into the sea they wouldn't flip sides because Israel is inherently evil and tainted for them.

I'm talking specifically about the sort of affluent liberal who attends a George Floyd or Free Palestine rally, and the posters here who are acting like the current conflict with Iran hasn't been decades in the making. People like Alex.

Not historical Soviets nor Soviet sympathizers.

Affluent liberals who attend such things want all sorts of people punished many of them weaker. And while they aren't Soviet sympathizers the chain of transmission of their support for Palestine comes from a 70s milieu who were Soviet sympathizers. Also affluent liberals are pretty divided about Israel-Palestine. It's their children who are hardcore anti-Israel.

I really doubt that they think so, but I suppose I haven’t seen the sentiment firsthand.

I would posit that you could get the average college student to cheer for mass killings if President Trump spoke out against them. Countersignaling is cheap.

The sentiment is that the future is going to be, at best, pointless and at worst, bad anyway. So anything that causes an upheaval and bloodies the nose of the groups they dislike is good.

"If it bleeds it leads." William Randolph Hearst understood this.

They have the same attitude as Iran -- that America is the Great Satan and the source of all evil, and so anything that weakens it is good.

Everyone was cheering when Israel infiltrated a consumer electronics supply chain to plant hidden explosives inside batteries. That is actually pushing the boundaries of normalized warfare. Blockades when you are at war has long been normalized. The US has been blockading Venezuela and Cuba international shipping without any sort of war.

I like being able to afford food, and generally dislike freezing to death in the winter.

Me too, but rather than bemoan the predictable consequences of an aggressive war it's more productive to contend with the apparatus that brought the world to this state.

Everyone was cheering when Israel infiltrated a consumer electronics supply chain to plant hidden explosives inside batteries. That is actually pushing the boundaries of normalized warfare.

Did anyone not in Hezbollah get a pager with explosives in it?

If you define Hezbollah as, “the entire Shia population of Lebanon,” then probably not. If you define Hezbollah as, “people engaging in or directly supporting militant operations,” then yes, a whole lot of innocent people got exploding pagers.

I have no idea how this didn’t kill the export market for Israeli electronics. For all we know, Mossad has the capability to kill anyone anywhere in the world with an Israeli-made chip in their car at any time.

Mossad has deviously sabotaged Intel's 10nm and 7nm processes, forcing Windows laptop manufacturers to rely on Israeli-made chips - when overloaded with excess wattage - to reach temperatures high enough to detonate the lithium ion batteries within. That's why real warriors of the Ummah use AMD and ARM.

There were reports of collateral victims, yes but that hardly matters. Planting hidden explosives in the consumer supply chain is normalized terrorism, so I don't really want to see people act shocked that Iran is projecting power over its Strait, literally the most normal and predictable wartime maneuverer ever.

I don’t love the term “terrorism” here since the electronics were clearly aimed at military targets and not civilians. No one calls it terrorism when you bomb an army base but some collateral damage kills civilians too. Terrorism I think by definition is causing civilian harm to change politics.

I don’t love the term “terrorism” here since the electronics were clearly aimed at military targets and not civilians. No one calls it terrorism when you bomb an army base but some collateral damage kills civilians too. Terrorism I think by definition is causing civilian harm to change politics.

I agree, but the basic playbook is (1) identify conduct which is perceived as being reprehensible; (2) falsely accuse Israel of doing it. Thus, the false accusations of "genocide," "apartheid," "terrorism," etc.

Israel obviously did genocide when the State was founded. And some elements of apartheid seem obviously true. Those it’s fine to say might makes right. I sort of believe segregation is good.

More comments

No one calls it terrorism when you bomb an army base but some collateral damage kills civilians too.

American authorities have done this regularly since at least the 1983 Beirut bombing, through the attack on the Cole, and the Kabul bombing just a few years back. Maybe their definition is slightly more consistent if you expected uniforms while doing combat actions, but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" isn't completely wrong either.

So if a mail bomb is sent to some IDF recruit by Hezbhollah to blow up inside his house then that's not terrorism because it's a military target?

It's not the target that is exceptional here, it's the clandestine appropriation of a consumer supply chain as a weapon. That is actually unprecedented, it's a method of warfare that fundamentally erodes global trust in economic trade and cooperation, it is far more unusual than a blockade of a Strait in the middle of an existential war. As to the semantics, feel free to not call it terrorism if it makes you feel better, even though you would call it that if/when bombs are set off inside the homes of Israeli or US troops.

Spitting in the food in the back kitchen isn't such an enormous taboo because of the direct consequences, but because none of us want to live in a world where that is remotely acceptable behavior, we want to trust our food has been handled properly and not question it when we sit down to eat. But people here defending the planting of hidden explosives in consumer goods can't seem to wrap their minds around those consequences. Why is Hezbollah such a dangerous enemy Israel has to normalize spitting in the food as a method of warfare?

So if a mail bomb is sent to some IDF recruit by Hezbhollah to blow up inside his house then that's not terrorism because it's a military target?

If Hezbollah were genuinely targeting a specific soldier, I wouldn't call that terrorism, especially if Hezbollah had the option of destroying the entire neighborhood the soldier lived in but instead decided to use a mail bomb. I would object for other reasons, but I wouldn't call it terrorism.

As far as blockades go, I agree that the rules of war do not have a general prohibition on naval blockades. However, I recall the following:

(1) A blockade must be directed at enemy territory, as distinguished from a blockade of the high seas or of an international waterway. Thus, if the Iranian Navy blockaded the Port of San Diego, this would arguably conform to the rules of war. But I doubt that blockading the Strait of Hormuz would conform.

(2) The blockading state must not play favorites, i.e. the blockade must be enforced against all states, friendly or not.

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like this is an illegal blockade. Of course I am open to being corrected.

More comments

Targeted killing of enemy combatants is not terrorism. Simple as.

The US has been blockading Venezuela and Cuba international shipping without any sort of war.

Are either of these strictly a "blockade"? The Cuba embargo is strictly rules on US businesses in (most, but not all) industries doing business with Cuba. Other countries' ships and planes can and do go in and out there. The closest to a blockade proper was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that's quite a long time ago now.

There were some seized ships going to Venezuela recently, but those were nominally illegally-flagged vessels ("shadow fleet") in international waters. I don't think correctly-flagged vessels saw any disruption.

Blockades aren't unheard of in hot warfare, though.

Cuba is facing essentially a full-country blackout from three months of US oil blockades...

In early January, the US cut off Cuba’s main oil supplier, Venezuela, after capturing its president in a military raid and forcing its acting government to halt shipments.

Weeks later, Cuba lost oil supply from other providers, such as Mexico, after the US threatened them with additional tariffs, arguing that Havana posed an “extraordinary threat” by aligning itself with “hostile countries and malign actors, (and) hosting their military and intelligence capabilities,” a claim that Cuba rejected.

If by oil blockade you mean 'no longer receiving it for free from Venezuela', then I suppose there is a global oil blockade on everyone. Cuba is the world's worst sovereign in paying back its debts: even North Korea has to play nice with China and Russia on occasion. It's like a bankrupt whining about a 'loan blockade' after defaulting on credit cards several times.

Cuba could very easily buy oil from Venezuela or Mexico. They just choose not to, because their government wants to pocket the American dollars for themselves.

I'm sorry, can we just cut the bullshit? The US kidnaps the leader of Venezuela and then forbids them from shipping oil to Cuba. Then it strongarms Mexico into stopping oil shipments to Cuba. No matter how you try to rationalize this, it is certainly not more normal than Iran's restrictions on the Strait.

Iran is fighting an asymmetric war for its survival. The only two possibilities were ever immediate surrender or blockading the Strait. Most likely the Friday timing of the attack on Iran was intended to wrap up the war before the markets even opened by Monday in the best case scenario. But I find it hard to tolerate people complaining about Iran acting in a way that's unprecedented or unpredictable, when it's neither of those things. If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.

All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that.

It took me a moment to find the article, but the Americans have no formal oil embargo on Cuba from Venezuela.

It's not a rationalization: it's an objective fact, and you are the one who is full of shit. You're a third worldist who is upset that a communist nation is not getting free gibs. The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates is a result of their mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence. Mexico can quite easily sell to Venezuela at below-market rates. Why don't they?

Is because, I don't know, they want to make money, and not give away gibs?

More comments

Do they genuinely think that a world where normalizing blockades of international shipping is one that they would actually want to live in?

The answer to your question is No, because the answer to the first 4 words of your question is also No.

What's driving the disconnect between them and me?

An inability to actually model the world. They are so sheltered that they cannot conceive of a lack of material abundance being available. It's too abstract for them. The world is too complex for them.

how the hell can a sea mine collect a toll?

You mine the area except for a narrow safe passage that you can control with your military -- currently that means passing between Qeshm and Larak Island and then hugging the Iranian coast near Bandar Abbas. Anyone who doesn't pay the toll either hits a mine or gets boarded and/or blown up by your military.

This doesn't work so well for Iran if they lose control of the coastline and islands, however, which I suspect is going to happen in the next few weeks.

Note that the few ships traveling through the strait are currently using a small area near the Iranian coastline.

I have strong suspicions that the non Iranian ships doing so have made "donations" to appropriate Iranian parties for safe passage.

It's interesting that its happening now. Not earlier in the conflict when they still had centralized command, but also not waiting until their drone threat is gone. Reports were that some countries like India were paying their toll, so I thought their "selective closure" strategy was working. Mines seem likely to just block off everyone from the Strait, which throws away their last bit of negotiation leverage and cripples their economy.

Possibly this is a desparate, last ditch effort from a group that's losing control, running out of missiles, and scared that more countries might show up to send escort ships.

Markets seem.... up on this news? That's odd.

I don’t think mines block off everyone. They’re usually designed to anchor in place and wall off specific areas. You leave a few safe paths and either guard the secret (hard to do vs. the U.S.!) or concentrate your firepower in those spots.

Obviously, not everything works perfectly, which is why they’re feared and hated…

It seems like this wouldn't work well in the strait of hormuz, where the deep shipping channels are so narrow (just 2 miles wide, one each way). Unless they're making some sort of bullet hell maze with the correct path only known to their friendly ships lol. I guess they could drop mines in other part of the Gulf and leave the Strait alone, but Im not sure what that accomplishes. I guess we'll find out. UK says it's going to send mine hunters

No, the navigable channel is quite wide, almost the entire width of the strait. There are narrow shipping lanes in the deepest part which are (usually) maintained for traffic separation purposes, but even fully laden oil tankers can use most of the strait.

It's old news. I'm not sure why it's being re-reported now. It's obviously in Iran's interests to have people believe it mined the straits and the only way through is the safe corridor hugging the Iranian coastline.

If it's true, I suspect it won't be much of a problem once the Marines arrive. The US and Israel have almost certainly had continuous observation of the strait since the war began, and likely know the locations of any potential mines.

Again? This "news" from unnamed sources came out a week ago.

CNN posted it 2 weeks ago, even.

Theoretically, this might pressure those countries to abandon the US, but that's a high stakes choice.

It could, but it could also see the Gulf countries that depend on commerce through the strait deciding that Iran is now an existential threat for them. Rumors of demands for post-war traffic control (payments) in the strait probably aren't endearing Iran with its neighbors.

The anti-Iran "alliance" here is presumably capable of blockading Iran's ports just as well. This is probably bad for oil-importing countries in terms of gas prices, but allowing defecting in the prisoners dilemma of blocking oil exports is a losers game. A blockade is contra a lot of things the US Navy claims to stand for (free flow of commerce), but if UAE or the Saudis decide to mine Iran's ports by air, would they stop them?

On the gripping hand, it feels bad that the US/Israel seem to have started this, but the incentives are such that a bunch of usual allies are going to get dragged in: no matter what they say about "Trump's war", the EU and East Asia need the ships to flow at least as badly as the US does.

The anti-Iran "alliance" here is presumably capable of blockading Iran's ports just as well.

Everyone is capable of blockading oil traffic, but when you live there it's holding a gun to your own leg because nobody wants to deal with a series of giant oil spills just off your coastline.

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