site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28883 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 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.

No peace deal with Iran

Can I just point out that 21 hours seems too short for negotiations? I don't think the talks were done in earnest, at all. The 150-page JCPOA took almost 2 years of frivolous negotiations and lasted just as long. A 21 hour session in the middle of an active conflict is not very likely to reach a better equilibrium that both parties are happy with. Iran carried bloodstained schoolbags of kids killed in the Minab strike on the flight to Pakistan, they were certainly not there to surrender. I suspect the administration (or at least Vance) already knew this, and deliberately structured one-sided terms intended to be rejected so Trump can attempt building political scaffolding for escalation and blame Iran ("Look, we offered Iran a peace deal and they chose not to accept it"). Meanwhile, the Israelis have been busy!

Between accepting one of the greatest strategic defeats in decades, and trying to prosecute a horrific war amidst historic energy and food prices, we remain stuck with the latter.

Allegedly, the talks ended when JD Vance proffered this "final offer" to the Iranians:

  1. End all uranium enrichment

  2. Dismantle all major nuclear enrichment facilities

  3. Retrieve the alleged 400kg of highly enriched uranium believed to be underground

  4. Accept a broader peace, security and de-escalation framework which includes regional allies

  5. End funding for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis

  6. Fully open the Straight of Hormuz, charging no tolls for passage

I haven't seen anything JD Vance offered the Iranians in exchange for the above, something the US is demonstrably incapable of anywhere close to accomplishing through military means without vast escalation, an escalation which the Trump admin simply cannot accomplish.

So, Iran, our red-line demands are that you dismantle your entire nuclear program, abandon all regional allies, and give up your strategic leverage, or else! The Iranians were obviously going to walk away from this.

This is the sort of DOA wishlist which will end any negotiation as entirely pointless. The Iranians are not the ones who need to save face here. The Iranians are not the ones who need the war to end now. They planned for and were comfortable with a longer war of attrition where they would bring the world to its economic knees because their strategy is to split the coalition against them by causing pain to everyone and getting everyone to blame the Trump Admin. This strategy appears to be working pretty well. And their Houthi allies can close the Bab al Mandab at any moment, too.

The Trump admin accepted the 10 point framework to get a ceasefire which the IRGC would actually assent to, which is basically just a major American strategic defeat, and then the Trump administration in yet another example of why this administration is agreement-incapable completely discarded that 10 point framework which they signed off on, which you can tell by the Pakistanis publishing the entire message with the subject line included.

The Americans immediately attempted to back out claiming Lebanon wasn't covered knowing full well it was, allowing the Israelis to continue their civilian slaughter ethnic cleansing campaign in Lebanon, to which the Iranians responded by not allowing any passages through the Straight of Hormuz. And so after markets closed, we're back to Trump talking about ridiculous destructive new plans for how we're totally not losing this war through a blockade. I guess we'll see if the Iranians start bombing Israel again in response to Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign.

Trump needed an offramp from his insane threats and so he just lied, again, to get a "ceasefire" which he could lie about, again, and then when the Iranians approached the negotiation in a serious manner we gave them this detached-from-reality wishlist of Israeli demands. Completely embarrassing and ridiculous.

That "final offer" is literally the terms of an unconditional surrender lmao. You have to earn those... Good luck Mr President!

No, an unconditional surrender would have the US writing a new constitution for Iran and holding elections in 5 years.

Can I just point out that 21 hours seems too short for negotiations?

Maybe, maybe not. There are two types of negotiations: ones where the two sides ranges of acceptable deals overlap, and ones where they don't.

When they overlap, the name of the game is to get as much of your value without pushing down their value below their acceptable limit. This involves all sorts of tactics like setting fake "hard limits" (so that they're afraid of going below your acceptable limit, and offer better terms), hiding your true values, convincing them to change their assessments, etc. Spending extra time can get you more information about the other side, and let you get better deals.

When they don't, it's just a matter of figuring that out. This is usually complicated by the fakeouts used above, but it wouldn't need to take dozens of hours to discover. Spending extra time at that point is useless for negotiation purposes, but it might still send a political message, or serve as information gathering, or something else.

I mean, the negotiation positions were far too far apart for this to work.

From America's POV, we have been kicking Iran's ass left and right to the point that any reasonable regime would have already Fed Ex'd us their uranium.

From Iran's POV they have discovered this awesome new trick, which is just basically the modern equivalent of unrestricted submarine warfare, and think this is a trump card they can used forever to get cash, get nukes, etc.

I have to think, that despite European public declarations that they are basically blaming the US for Iran's actions, behind the scenes they acknowledge that Iran cannot be rewarded for what they have done. There are simply far too many analogous situations in the world. Just in the Strait of Hormuz Oman or the UAE could demand the same. For the Suez/Straight of Gibraltar you have the whole Mediterranean, Ethiopia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yemen, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan. This tactic is basically untenable, and really if France or UK or Germany had any stones, they'd be encouraging us to nuke Tehran as a response.

Or maybe I am wrong and Europe is truly too poor and too weak to do anything about this or anything else. They have given up on the idea of nonproliferation entirely and expect nukes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc and dont care to raise a finger.

Europe definitely agrees, but Trump is such a pain to work with that it's making it hard for them to actually do anything about it, because they know Trump will spin anything they do very loudly. He is simply incapable of graciously accepting quiet assistance, otherwise they would. In other words, Trump turns any action into a potential domestic political disaster, so coupled with the collective action problem Europe always has, of course no one is willing to stick their neck out even if they know that they probably should.

Plus, most of them are still pissed that Trump didn't involve them to begin with (they didn't get any sort of meaningful heads up) and in fact Trump initially bragged about not needing help, and then had the gall to turn around only a week or two later and trash them in public for not helping anyways.

There are simply far too many analogous situations in the world. Just in the Strait of Hormuz Oman or the UAE could demand the same. For the Suez/Straight of Gibraltar you have the whole Mediterranean, Ethiopia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yemen, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan. This tactic is basically untenable

I maintain that it's worse than anyone thinks. Again, the only way for Iran to control the Strait is to strike ships outside their territorial waters, and specifically in another nation's waters. The precedent, therefore, is that one can declare control over any important waters within credible (at least, what insurers consider credible) range of their anti-ship missiles... I'm not up on the latest tech, but I believe there are some out there that can go over 500km.

Israel

Can you imagine the outcry if Israel were to declare that they were going to start attacking ships using the Suez without paying a toll to Israel "because of Hamas's illegal war against them"? It'd be hilarious to watch the comments.

Well, the question is also how it compares to the situation with Russia and Ukraine; I'm sure there are many who don't want to lean too far out of the window there in terms of asserting restrictions on the conduct of besieged countries lest it come around to bite them now or later. Of course there is some asymmetry in that Ukraine and allies have a clearer-cut case that the ships they are attacking are in some sense Russian rather than merely serving Russian interests, but I don't know how much bite this distinction would have before a court of legal autists when most of the other gulf countries are hosting US military bases.

(The comparison here works, and somewhat fails with your Israel example, because in objective terms most ships passing through both the Suez canal and the Strait of Hormuz belong to American allies or can be argued to have a causal link to the continued ability of the US to prosecute the war. Conversely, if somehow Europe and the US either grew a spine or grew enough Muslims to collectively assume a posture of support for Hamas against Israel and then Israel did the thing you described, I doubt that, say, the Chinese or Argentinians or any other mostly neutral party would be getting their panties in a twist over this.)

I made the Israel point last week and received...feedback

really if France or UK or Germany had any stones, they'd be encouraging us to nuke Tehran as a response

What Europe really doesn't need is breaching the nuclear taboo when Russia has a 10:1 advantage in tactical nukes over NATO, when the US is openly dismissive towards NATO. Russian conventional forces are no match for Europe's but they enjoy huge nuclear superiority.

And Europe's not exactly keen on 'total energy apocalypse' as the enraged Iranians fling ballistic missiles absolutely everywhere, immolate all the Middle East's energy production. Maybe they fling some dirty bombs around too, why not at this stage? Would anyone blame them?

Encouraging a nuclear war is the absolute last thing that France or Germany would want!

If that's the specific concern, they would be encouraging all US action up to nukes and submitting their own conventional forces in support of US efforts. This would prevent Iran nuclear efforts and show solidarity against the tactic of state sanctioned piracy.

Instead they are complaining about the wrong party and, let's look at Ukraine, an anemic response there is what has happened.

This would prevent Iran nuclear efforts

Why might Iran want nuclear weapons? In large part because the US goes around attacking countries that lack nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Un sleeps at night because he has nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Assad are dead or in exile because they lacked nuclear weapons.

The best way to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is to negotiate sincerely, flush every piece of hysterical Israeli 'intelligence' straight down the toilet and get on with pursuing national interests, in contrast to slavishly serving Israel.

That's what Europe's general stance has been. Diplomacy, trade, win-win. The US has wrecked this and done its absolute best to make a strong case for Iranian nuclearization. Quite clearly Iran's conventional forces have failed to deter attacks on the country.

The US launched this retarded war, without any clear plan for victory, without even the necessary capabilities for victory. The US army can't be deployed quickly enough to bases that are being bombed out and would probably bog down in the first couple of major cities before even reaching Tehran. The US air force can post all these epic videos of explosions (real or decoys, nobody knows) but cannot seem to prevent Iran firing off waves of missiles and drones, cannot defeat Iran's plan to inflict economic pain until the US gives up.

Trump has played into the Iranian plan masterfully, obsessing about market manipulation. He shows weakness every day of the week, while constantly backflipping and making fresh ultimatums, then extending them. One day he unsanctions Iranian oil to lower prices, the next he blockades Iran. Inconstant and incoherent. An ideal target for a prolonged economic campaign.

The US navy can blockade Iran but cannot undo Iran's blockade of the straits. They cannot defeat Iran's plan.

European forces don't have the capability to do what the US can't, there is no reason for them to charge into the valley of death. It's egregious for the US to pussy out, slinking away from the straits with the 'world's most powerful navy' and demand their allies charge in and die, for the sake of a war that directly harms their interests.

Why might Iran want nuclear weapons? In large part because the US goes around attacking countries that lack nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Un sleeps at night because he has nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Assad are dead or in exile because they lacked nuclear weapons.

They've seemingly always wanted them for the purpose of deploying them against the US and Israel. Yes also so they can do their terrorism in the Middle East without fearing reprisals.

The best way to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is to negotiate sincerely, flush every piece of hysterical Israeli 'intelligence' straight down the toilet and get on with pursuing national interests, in contrast to slavishly serving Israel.

That's what Europe's general stance has been. Diplomacy, trade, win-win. The US has wrecked this and done its absolute best to make a strong case for Iranian nuclearization. Quite clearly Iran's conventional forces have failed to deter attacks on the country.

I think this is the European approach because they have no other approach. If Iran makes moves towards nuclearization they just shrug and say, "aww shucks." If Iran engages in piracy against their vessels they just shrug and say, "aww shucks."

The US launched this retarded war, without any clear plan for victory, without even the necessary capabilities for victory. The US army can't be deployed quickly enough to bases that are being bombed out and would probably bog down in the first couple of major cities before even reaching Tehran. The US air force can post all these epic videos of explosions (real or decoys, nobody knows) but cannot seem to prevent Iran firing off waves of missiles and drones, cannot defeat Iran's plan to inflict economic pain until the US gives up.

Yeah, it was a bad war. Not for these reasons. For the reason that Trump should have no Europe wouldn't like it, and most of America wouldn't like it because war is expensive. AND most importantly because everyone should have known what was actually necessary to win the war, which was actions that America has not taken since 1945 and is unlikely to take until it is in an actual existential war.

Trump has played into the Iranian plan masterfully, obsessing about market manipulation. He shows weakness every day of the week, while constantly backflipping and making fresh ultimatums, then extending them. One day he unsanctions Iranian oil to lower prices, the next he blockades Iran. Inconstant and incoherent. An ideal target for a prolonged economic campaign.

Yeah, the Trump chaos plan doesnt work against people who would strap a bomb to themselves if they thought it would kill 5 Americans.

The US navy can blockade Iran but cannot undo Iran's blockade of the straits. They cannot defeat Iran's plan.

Because Europe accepts piracy of its own vessels because they are mad at Trump.

Imagine if Israel did this to the Suez Canal everytime Hamas or Hezbollah attacked them. You wouldn't be making this same stupid argument.

European forces don't have the capability to do what the US can't, there is no reason for them to charge into the valley of death. It's egregious for the US to pussy out, slinking away from the straits with the 'world's most powerful navy' and demand their allies charge in and die, for the sake of a war that directly harms their interests.

Its true they can't do what we cant, but its plausible (unlikely because they are comically useless as a general rule) they could do what we are UNWILLING to do, which is land ground forces and seize all access to the straight. They could deploy escort ships to the straight. They would, of course, do those things if Morocco was mining the Straight of Gilbralter over a border dispute with Algeria and shooting at French, British, and German vessels and demanding $100 billion annually in tolls for using said waterway.

Russian conventional forces are no match for Europe's

You sure about this? I'm not saying Russia has high quality forces (lol), but the Euros barely have forces. What kind of magazine depth are France/UK/Germany/Italy playing with right now? Can they fight for longer than a week?

Russia is a shitshow, but they at least can keep a steady supply of material flowing to the front of a protracted war. Libya was a while ago, but that was a pathetic demonstration of munitions capacity.

If Russia can't take Ukraine, then how can they hope to face Europe? The Europeans can just draft a couple million men and feed them into the meatgrinder to buy time, if they're short of munitions. They have a gigantic population compared to Russia, let alone Ukraine. They have gigantic armies in aggregate, actual navies, dozens of submarines to raid Russia's merchant shipping, actual air forces with stealth aircraft... Poland is almost purpose built for this task, the Polish army is roughly as strong as Ukraine's. Probably stronger, given how Ukraine's lost most of their heavy weapons by now. They'd have a huge frontline too, Finland down to Turkey. Russia couldn't defend all that.

There's no way Europe can lose in conventional warfare against a country 1/4 their size in population and maybe 1/6th or less in wealth as long as they're united. They have 2 million troops, more than enough to deal with Russia.

I imagine Russia could grab the Baltics without much effort, particularly after they are done with Ukraine (one way or another). It’s a roll of the dice if the EU actually wants to go to war or would do anything if Russia went fast enough.

I don't think Russia could successfully invade Europe either.

It just wouldn't be a curb stomp against Russia. I assume both sides would flail around a lot and a bunch of people would die.

Europe > Russia with enough sacrifice and coordination (which is not a guarantee for the EU, as no part of a military budget can be used to give old people more money, which is Euro government's primary purpose it seems) . But "no match" is pretty generous right now lol

The problem here is that there are 3 sides: Israel, Iran and the US. The US would like to walk away with something (like destroying the Iranian nuclear program or getting money from Hormuz) but needs Iran's cooperation. Iran was just decapitated, has rationally no trust in the other two parties (trust in the Trumpian US is stupid, viz. the tariff saga and Israel is out for blood) and has leverage over Hormuz, whether the US likes that or not. Israel really likes this war and is seemingly not that bothered about the energy thing. I know a few Israelis quite well, it's a very martial society (and controversially, starts to resemble its neighbours more and more as it becomes less Ashkenazi).

There not being war and there being a negotiated settlement would require both the US (doubtful) and Israel (extremely doubtful) to back off. Iran would need credible guarantees that they aren't in for another decapitation strike etc.

However the markets seem to be pricing in at least a decent chance of some resolution and the Iranians also want the oil to flow eventually. The US can probably save face by just fucking off, but Israel is a different kettle of fish.

Think it's time to buy USO tomorrow AM...

Can I just point out that 21 hours seems too short for negotiations?

Too short if there was any chance at an actual deal, but it seemed pretty obvious that the Iranian demands weren't even better than what the US would get from walking away. Did anyone really think them keeping control of the strait, their only(if substantial) bargaining chip was going to be accepted? Let alone reparations and a green light on developing nukes. The reparations were probably brought up as the droppable bargaining chip but if Washington wants a status quo where Iran controls the strait then they can have that by just going back to bombing Iran and hoping for some miracle collapse. I don't really see a stable equilibrium available.

edit: And I'll note I think this war was a terrible idea from the start and am finding myself drifting further into despising Trump for what he's done to our position in the world. I'm not saying this as a supporter, it just seems obvious to me that now we've stepped into it there isn't some reasonable deal to get us out.

21 hours seems too short for negotiations?

Why? These things are usually drawn out because America and Iran don’t negotiate directly and pass everything through intermediaries. And by Trump’s account they agreed essentially on every point except for the nuclear question. I don’t see why it would take longer than 21 hours to realize that, the idea that negotiating is this special activity that takes lots of expertise is a myth from the Georgetown school of foreign policy to promote the need for bureaucrat-scholars to run everything.

I suspect the administration (or at least Vance) already knew this, and deliberately structured one-sided terms intended to be rejected so Trump can attempt building political scaffolding for escalation

The leading theory on this forum a week ago was that Trump was losing so badly he would accept any peace deal as long as it was face-saving and he could declare victory. Not so?

Between accepting one of the greatest strategic defeats in decades

America totally destroyed Iran’s military in a stunning lopsided victory. I’ve been told this was only a tactical victory because Iran now controls the straits and is using that as leverage, but, weirdly, Trump is now announcing a blockade of the straits himself. Perhaps America isn’t defeated?

amidst historic energy and food prices

I fear that denying this will have me marked as some kind of rabid Trump fanboy who can’t deal with reality but I have to point out that oil was much higher during the 2008 crisis, back when the same dollars were worth more.

I had to make an account to respond to you because I’ve seen your comments the past week. You do realize that this war is incredibly unpopular right? This war guarantees a Democratic wipeout unless in the next week or so Iran collapses and we avoid the economic fallout. So then we probably get an impeachment and the lamest of lame duck presidencies. So this way is a disaster for Trump, MAGA and the Republicans even if we’re winning the war. Plus Trump campaigned on no new wars and America First so he basically now has betrayed his biggest supporters.

Also, what would it take for you to admit this war was a mistake? If we don’t get regime change, they keep their proxies, and they keep their nuclear program, what was the point of this war? What did we win? They now have more leverage than before because they can tank the world economy any time they want.

Last I checked, the Iran war is slightly more popular than the democrats. Granted, by a few percent, but still. And at this stage of the late republic it's anything could happen to begin with; that just makes it harder to tease out.

Last I checked, the Iran war is slightly more popular than the democrats

Given recent electoral results and the midterm chances on the prediction markets, there's good reason to believe a lot of Dem hate is from otherwise Dem supporting groups feeling angry or down about them losing 2026. It's not a great comparison then unless the argument is "well same thing, people are only upset about Iran cause we're not doing well" which uh yeah, we aren't. We're clearly failing at our stated goals while wrecking the world economy. It could be a fair argument but it requires conceding that the war is going poorly.

If this war doesn’t end soon and prices/inflation keep going up, that will change very quickly.

I had to make an account to respond to you because I’ve seen your comments the past week.

Based

You do realize that this war is incredibly unpopular right?

I don’t care. My theory is operating at a much higher level than the midterms. We’re talking about global power and America controlling the world’s key infrastructure and nuclear weapons and Donald Trump’s heroic memory in the body politic. I don’t care if Charlemagne loses the midterms or Martin Luther gets impeached.

I don’t think Trump cares either. At least, among his many priorities, solving Iran and the Middle East comes before we pivot to the midterms. Ideally this is wrapped up by then. If not it’s still worth doing.

Plus Trump campaigned on no new wars and America First so he basically now has betrayed his biggest supporters.

When did Trump betray me? I’m in favor of all of this. The Iran War is part of America First because it is building a generational victory where America is undisputed hegemon of the world.

I understand that many of Trump’s supporters are dismayed or skeptical. Most of my friends are. I’ve called them all panicans, to their faces.

Also, what would it take for you to admit this war was a mistake? If we don’t get regime change, they keep their proxies, and they keep their nuclear program, what was the point of this war?

The proxies we destroyed? The nuke program we destroyed?

They now have more leverage than before because they can tank the world economy any time they want.

Well no, it turns out they can’t. But we can.

what would it take for you to admit this war was a mistake?

Why won't you answer this simple question?

It has now been 29 days since you said that the war will basically be wrapped up in three weeks.

Is it even possible for you to admit that the war was a mistake, or do you believe that everything "achieved" so far has already made it worth it regardless of how it ends? If so, you should just say so, so that we can all update accordingly.

In the post you linked I said five weeks, and it’s been six, so can I say “same difference potato potato” or do I need to explain what someone really means when they say “just a second”?

Is it even possible for you to admit that the war was a mistake

Because you seemingly phrased this question such that I’m actually irrational and refusing to recognize the truth (“that the war was a mistake”) as though my zealotry is blinding my eyes. Next I can say “nothing can ever convince me” and you can all roll your eyes and write me off? Is it possible for you to admit that the war is going well?

Next I can say “nothing can ever convince me”

Is this the case, then?

Is it possible for you to admit that the war is going well?

Sure. For example:

  • Iran hands over the uranium and pinkie promises not to make a nuke
  • the Ayatollah steps down and the Iranians make a new thank you USA
  • Iran renounces support for the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah in word and in deed

Those are the kind of things that would make me say the war was a success. Now it's your turn!

Considering that the war is going well something pretty dramatic would have to change for it to become a failure. But for the sake of argument let's see...

  • Iran starts consistently winning skirmishes and engagements, sinking ships, killing hundreds of American soldiers, etc.
  • Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, et al. start crying uncle and start begging for America to exit / surrender to Iran
  • Iran acquires nuclear weapons
  • Iran tolls the Strait of Hormuz
  • The Abraham Accords are abandoned and Israel reverts to being a pariah state

I find it a little amusing that most of these would constitute things being worse than the status quo ante. It seems that if tomorrow Donald announces that the war is over and everyone goes home and we end up where we were before all this mess except Iran spent some missiles and replaced the Ayatollah you'd consider this a smashing success.

More comments

When did Trump betray me? I’m in favor of all of this. The Iran War is part of America First because it is building a generational victory where America is undisputed hegemon of the world.

I understand that many of Trump’s supporters are dismayed or skeptical. Most of my friends are. I’ve called them all panicans, to their faces.

I'm going to assume you have the theory of mind to understand how Trump betrayed many of his supporters by claiming he was anti war in the middle east and then going into the middle east, even if you are personally pro war so what is the point of this?

And it's not like they're just no name people, some of the top conservative influencers like Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens or Alex Jones have been targeted and effectively kicked out of MAGA for wanting Trump to do what he said and get out of the middle east.

So I understand the objection here and I want to be careful to answer it without coming off as zealous or irrational -- however, I also want to avoid "speaking past the sale" by accepting the premise that Trump has betrayed his supporters. I don't feel betrayed at all, and I know lots of friends who are fine with everything Trump has done. I also know lots of friends with concerns or objections although the modal response is more "dismay" than "betrayal".

And I understand that people like Tucker and Candace appear to outsiders like the biggest MAGA supporters of all now feeling betrayed -- but I have to tell you I hate these grifters and believe they've done immeasurable damage to conservatism in general and most Trump supporters have no deep well of love for any of these people. (I've hated Tucker for years, you might look through the archives and find me saying nice things about Alex Jones, but in general these people make it harder for us (us here, you and I) to understand each other.)

Trump is right about MAGA, it is all basically about Donald Trump. MAGA recognizes for better and worse that Trump created this political moment, even if not all of it poured out of his head fully-formed like Athena and he was taking advantage of currents that existed dormant in the population. However, basically, there is no vehicle but Trump right now. All these people who thought they could take advantage of Trump to sell their brands and then get off at their stop are confused. There was not actually a massive wave of support for Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson as such, there was a massive wave of support for these people as they were explainers of and conduits to Trump. This is also what happened to Marjorie Taylor Greene, who thought that she had some kind of independent political base she could use to play spoiler and extract concessions. (Oops.) Now that they've all turned on Trump, they've had to build out the new political vessel they call "America First". I believe Fuentes was the first to treat this as a distinct political category, so not everyone is using it to avoid the association, although it's comic anyways because it still comes from something Trump said first. So although it's a little more complicated maybe you see what I mean. The entire rising right wing is downstream of Donald Trump and now all these grifters want to excommunicate him from the church he created. MAGA sedevacantism?

Anyways I am describing the fact of loyalty to Trump and trying to describe what makes somebody like Tucker different from regular people who voted for Trump. (Tucker is especially bad because his texts from 2020 show that he claimed to have hated Trump all along and was hoping for him to lose.) But now I want to discuss the motivations of regular Trump voters briefly.

Within Trumpworld I think there is a lot of variance on how to interpret Iran.

It's true that Trump promised no new forever wars and peace. It's also true that Trump promised that Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. And he frequently threatens to bomb his enemies and use force when necessary. In a way this is like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I think there's also a sense that because of Trump's unique focus on diplomacy and deals, it could have been possible for us to have our cake and eat it too. Guess not.

I know a lot of people who thought Trump would not start this war and are genuinely surprised. I also know a lot of people who thought this was contained within Trump's threats to bomb the mullahs, and are basically assuaged that nothing remarkable has happened. What's keeping a lid on everything for now is the idea that this war is supposed to be temporary and contained. We haven't committed to ten years of running Iran and so far America has basically won uninterrupted. Most of my friends who are against the war are hoping that this quietly goes away within a few months and we can focus on the midterms and everything will work out more or less ok. They don't really see this as a great betrayal so much as a great mistake that will detract from what they really care about (immigration and the economy).

For my part -- and I know that my perspective is unusual and therefore not representative but I will go on anyways: -- for my part I am in favor of war because I believe it increases Donald Trump's power to remake America in our image. I want Trump as Lincoln, Trump as FDR. I would basically be in favor of World War III. And I know what that entails and how things could go sideways and I believe that Trump is probably trying to achieve the same global reordering without getting as dramatic as that. But I don't feel betrayed by war in Iran because the simple act of going to war itself was never what I saw as the problem with Afghanistan or Iraq. To my mind the problems were that those wars were not really in America's interests, and that they were then badly-managed and ultimately lost. I don't think the same is true with Iran, I think restructuring the Middle East by dealing with the core problem of Iran is precisely in America's best interests. And I think, ultimately, when this war is done the long-distant future will understand this as one of the most important things Donald Trump ever did.

The current status quo, with Iran's leadership decimated but the IRGC retaining the ability to threaten shipping (ship insurance rates) is not a victory in Iran for Trump. He gambled on a quick decapitation strike, and when that failed to get the IRGC to surrender, Trump is unwilling or politically unable to escalate to ground troops to secure a full victory. It seems impossible for Trump to be viewed as Lincoln or FDR if he only stops at half-measures without the full restructuring of the middle east. In fact, stopping halfway probably going to result in a democrat wave election as they blame him for a failed war.

This seems to me to be doing a lot of mind-reading not in evidence. We don't actually know what risk assessments Trump had in mind before beginning the war and we don't know whether the American military leadership is even dissatisfied or not. (Likewise, we don't know the full range of options available to Trump and can't really judge his actions half-measures: before committing to ground troops there's always Bridge and Power Plant Day?)

What we do know is that American decapitated the Iranian military, there's a lot of confusion as to who's in charge of Iran, and Trump is pursuing negotiations instead of bombing for now. This all suggests that Trump is fine with the pace of progress because he's not in a special rush to change the status quo.

A month ago many posters were predicting total American catastrophe because Iran could threaten the Straits of Hormuz and shut down the global economy. That prediction hasn't held up very well. It has not successfully predicted an American rush to capitulate and given the Iranians terms. It has not successfully predicted America exiting the war. Likewise, the idea that the next Iranian leader would be some incalcitrant hardliner who would refuse American terms even harder doesn't seem born out. And as the Strait shutdown continues global economic apocalypse has mostly not ensued. Prices are up and maybe that matters in other countries. But in America everybody is already talking about the next Current Thing; last week it was the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Dinner and redistricting.

I guess we'll wait and see.

Americans have the attention span of a goldfish, so everything can indeed be forgotten by the voters this November. Gas prices hurt the democrats in 2022, but Trump's popularity has proved resilient against what would traditionally crucify a sitting president. Guess we'll see in a few more months.

They still have their proxies and nuclear material though? Where are you getting that information? Also, Trump doesn’t think the way you think he does. There’s no long term plan he just goes by instinct. That kind of thinking got him into this mess and he’s desperately trying to get himself out of it. The economic knock on effects haven’t even been felt yet.

My prediction is this will probably put into a recession and do long term harm to American’s standing in the world. The stock market will tank this week. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t see any way out of this unless Trump surrenders or Iran’s government falls.

This will be the thing that finally ends the MAGA movement. It’s that big of a mistake.

To believe in US defeat you have to believe the US is so squeamish that we'll beg Iran to re-open the SOH and in exchange offer to let them build nuclear weapons with impunity.

Stabilizing the strait may be costlier than we would like and somehow we'll do this public good alone, as usual, but not as costly as letting Iran have nukes.

To believe in US defeat you have to believe the US is so squeamish that we'll beg Iran to re-open the SOH and in exchange offer to let them build nuclear weapons with impunity.

Lets say the US does this. Shouldn't all these other countries, such as the ones who co-signed the JCPOA, and are allegedly highly invested in nonproliferation, act on their own to prevent it? Like say Trump did the thing Europe is basically calling for him to do: Call off the war and resign, and in his speech he says something like, "I'm old, this war was too hard for me, I was soundly beaten by Iran because they are too crafty for me. I'm joining Sleepy Joe in the retirement community." If he did that, and Europe just let Iran had the bomb, that would completely and totally solidify the case that Trumpy people have been making against them for the last decade.

There is no US defeat without complete European complete embarrassment, OR mass European blood in pursuit of a military objective for the first time since 1945.

I don't think Iran having nukes, in and of itself, would be costly for me. I estimate the chance of a nuclear-armed Iran using nuclear weapons against the US to be extremely low unless the US for some reason launches an existential war against the nuclear-armed Iran, which I also think would be very unlikely to happen.

As for a nuclear-armed Iran's ability to disrupt global shipping, I also do not care about that. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely prefer to be integrated with the global economy, just as it prefers that now over being sanctioned, and would not benefit from being heavily sanctioned if it tried to strong-arm itself into control of the Strait of Hormuz.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would be able to more successfully deter US and Israeli geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East, but I don't care about those ambitions.

The only thing that actually bothers me about the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran is that having nuclear weapons could help to stabilize the Iranian government and its authoritarian chuddism, with negative consequences for its population. But then, the current war has so far also been bad for the Iranian population. So far they are getting a really bad deal: getting bombed, their economy damaged, but without the government being replaced by a better one. And that seems unlikely to change barring a US ground invasion or a sudden collapse in the government's structural integrity. So it's not like the US is actually pursuing a policy that is focused on helping the Iranians to get a better government.

You know Iran's leadership is crazy, right?

Like they're not retarded. That's how they got so close to a nuclear weapon to begin with. But they're crazy. You know, like in the old joke about the mental patient telling the guy changing his tire about redistributing lugnuts. The real constraint on Iran nuking the US(the 'great satan') is their missile technology. Iran with the bomb would gamble, like Mao repeatedly threatened to, on being able to absorb casualties better than Israel. Islamo-posadist lunacy is something we can do without.

This is an interesting question because, once having the prestige of having a nuclear weapon; being respected as a nuclear armed state, Iran may moderate the "Death to America" stuff. Kind of like the loner when he gets a girlfriend.

Except Iran is a religious state for a religion that very intensely resists moderation, often in tremendously costly ways.

Compared to Israel, which is a territorially-ambitious religious state that condones the rape of prisoners and the incineration of the homes of minorities, and was literally founded on acts of terrorism to expel minorities, Iran comes across like a Sweden or Norway. Israel consciously starved the women and children in Gaza, causing 40% of the population to go days at a time without eating, which is quite costly and immoderate. Shouldn’t Iran be able to defend themselves from such a state?

Yeah, Iran absolutely cannot have a bomb and Iran’s government is terrible. Lots of people hate Trump so much they are losing sight of this. There are people actively rooting for Iran on the left, which is crazy because Iran’s regime is the exact opposite of what the left wants a government to look like.

I estimate the chance of a nuclear-armed Iran using nuclear weapons against the US to be extremely low unless the US for some reason launches an existential war against the nuclear-armed Iran

I would have to disagree with this. The leadership regularly chants "death to America" and has done so for some time. It's reasonable to believe that this means what it seems to mean. Iran has regularly attacked Israel even though Israel would gladly accept an uneasy peace with it just like Israel has with Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE.

Even if the US did absolutely nothing to harm Iran, Iran's leadership would still have strong incentive to harm the US if they thought they could get away with it. As a way of gaining clout in the Muslim world.

The Iranians chant death to America and the ayatollah has publicly gone to great length to explain that the slogan is not a direct wish for harm against American citizens, but a screed against their government and its belligerence and hostility towards Iran.

Which fits rather snugly as a contrast with the more Orwellian terminology of the west, like 'regime change', 'liberation' or other such verbiage. Which then translates to aerial bombing campaign with large amounts of civilians killed in practice.

Outside of drastic otherization and dehumanization, saying that Iran is exporting terrorism or spouting threatening rhetoric is functionally meaningless. In context their actions are a rational consequence to US and Israeli strategy in the region. Be that state sponsored invasions of Iran, the funding of terrorists in the region or other destabilizing actions such with Syria, Iraq and Libya.

And it's hard to pretend that Iran is hogging all the religious lunatics when Americans have decades of failed Zionist adjacent policies laying in their backyard. Along with theologians like Mike Huckabee, Pete Hegseth or Paula White.

The Iranians chant death to America and the ayatollah has publicly gone to great length to explain that the slogan is not a direct wish for harm against American citizens...

This is silly. If you're buying this then I have a bridge to sell uou.

Realistically it's somewhere in between. You have to understand that the US is literally Hitler to theocratic Iran. Not just morally, but in its "founding legend" and historical sense of self. So America is not just some foreign country, it's emblematic of their very independence. As such, chants of "Death to America" are somewhat patriotically entwined. Of course, now that we have literally been at war, the tone will probably be a bit different for the next decade.

If Americans say "Fuck Iran", are they expressing a literal desire to copulate with the mullahs?

"Death to America" is an idiom with a similar meaning in a different language and cultural context.

I'm not really in the market for a bridge, but if you can sell me an alternative explanation for what Iranians truly mean and feel that doesn't rely on blank otherization of them being blood thirsty animals with no rationality or reason, I'm all ears.

I'm not really in the market for a bridge, but if you can sell me an alternative explanation for what Iranians truly mean

The basic rule is that in assessing peoples' motivations, you pay more attention to their actions and less attention to their self-serving words. Iran's leadership has demonstrated -- through its actions -- what it means by its longstanding "Death to Israel" policy. It has been aggressively and chronically attacking Israel in general for many years now. Not just Israeli leadership or military facilities, but general attacks on everyone. The reasonable inference is that "Death to America" means something similar.

More comments

It's amazing to keep seeing this from people who hear Trump's bombastic bullshit and turn into Amelia Bedelia.

The Iranians chant death to America and the ayatollah has publicly gone to great length to explain that the slogan is not a direct wish for harm against American citizens, but a screed against their government and its belligerence and hostility towards Iran.

Sounds like a classic motte and bailey pivot to me.

  1. For starters, please quote and link these explanations.

  2. Do you agree that Iranian leadership also chants "death to Israel"?

  3. Do you maintain that "Death to Israel" is similarly not a direct wish for harm against Israeli citizens?

  4. Do you agree that Iranian leadership has directed attacks against Israeli civilians?

  5. Given that they know how "death to America" is interpreted, why do you think they continue with "death to America"?

Which fits rather snugly as a contrast with the more Orwellian terminology of the west, like 'regime change', 'liberation' or other such verbiage. Which then translates to aerial bombing campaign with large amounts of civilians killed in practice.

In your view, is the United States deliberately targeting Iranian civilians?

Outside of drastic otherization and dehumanization, saying that Iran is exporting terrorism or spouting threatening rhetoric is functionally meaningless.

Do you deny that Iran has been directing and supporting Hezbollah?

Do you deny that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?

Sounds like a classic motte and bailey pivot to me.

By who? The Iranian leadership? Are we supposing that they go in public, make a definitive statement of what 'Death to America' means, and every Iranian citizen knows to not take that statement seriously, and instead chant what they really mean. Which is to wish death on every American man woman and child, because Iranians are just subhuman and beastial like that and revel in suffering and death?

  1. Sure.
  2. Yes.
  3. The conflict between Israel and the muslim world has been rather vicious. I'd wager they wish for the same thing to happen to Israel as has happened to Gaza. And I'm sure they have elements similar to Israel, that gloat and cheer when civilians are being bombed. Insofar as there is a difference between the chants, I think they want Israel to stop existing as a country, and for the jews to be somewhere else.
  4. Is there a regime in this conflict that hasn't attacked civilians? Why would Tel Aviv looking like Gaza not be fair play? Not that the Iranians have done anything remotely close to that.
  5. I don't know how they think it is interpreted or if that even enters their minds.

But the again, why would I bother quote, answer or link anything? None of the anti-Iran hysteria does so. Post after post. Kind of crazy.

In fact nigh all of those posts are just a routine list of arbitrary accusations and arbitrary benchmarks. Why would Iran funding Hezbollah be a reason to not like Iran? Funding proxies that can be called terrorists is practically an American geopolitical hobby. Is it OK to cause suffering, chaos and death to achieve your political goals so long as you are not called Hezbollah?

In your view, is the United States deliberately targeting Iranian civilians?

No. But I think that US officials have shown a great lack of care towards civilian deaths. Including Hegseth defunding the division focused on reducing civilian harm. And how they handled the school bombing doesn't inspire confidence. So yeah, I think if we allow all parties in the conflict some wiggle room regarding collateral damage, I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be mad against.

Do you deny that Iran has been directing and supporting Hezbollah?

Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups. Why is funding proxies invalid when Iran does it, but not America or Israel?

Do you deny that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?

If we apply the label fairly then I think they look like incompetent amateurs compared to Israel. As demonstrated in the footage of Gaza.

By who? The Iranian leadership?

Pretty much, yes.

Are we supposing that they go in public, make a definitive statement of what 'Death to America' means, and every Iranian citizen knows to not take that statement seriously, and instead chant what they really mean. Which is to wish death on every American man woman and child, because Iranians are just subhuman and beastial like that and revel in suffering and death?

I'm not sure about Iranians in general, but Iranian leadership has consistently, chronically, and aggressively attacked Israeli civilians over the years. They've demonstrated what they mean by "Death to Israel."

If all they want is a change of government in Israel, why have they consistently, chronically, and aggressively attacked Israeli civilians?

Is there a regime in this conflict that hasn't attacked civilians?

It depends what you mean by "civilians." Israel has specifically targeted Iranian nuclear scientists who were reasonably believed to be part of Iran's nuclear program but who were not actually members of the Iranian military. In Gaza, Israel has unavoidably killed various civilians, but of course that's what happens when militants hide in civilian areas. You don't get immunity by ducking into a hospital or a mosque.

That being said, it doesn't really matter. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel has been pursuing a "Death to Gaza" policy and, as you claim "they [Iran's leadership] wish for the same thing to happen to Israel as has happened to Gaza." That's a very reasonable basis to believe that there is a great deal of risk from Iran possessing nuclear weapons. (Note that "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" have been Iranian slogans almost since the very beginning of the current regime in the 1970s.)

Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be denying that Iran exports terrorism.

It doesn't require any expertise to demonstrate that you are wrong. You don't seem to deny that Iran supports and directs Hezbollah or that Hezbollah regularly engages in terrorist activity. All you do is attempt to deflect from this reality with whataboutism. You are wrong there as well, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about Iran exporting terrorism.

The bottom line is that Iran's leadership has shown through their actions what its long-standing "Death to Israel" policy means in practice and it's reasonable to infer that Iran's leadership means basically the same thing with its "Death to America" policy.

More comments

Yeah we all know what “Death to America” means but the second Iran wants to mobilize American sympathy there’s a complicated explanation about how those words don’t mean what they appear to mean.

One imagines I would not get such sympathy if I were to say, “Death to hanikrummihundursvin”

More comments

I'm sure that Putin and Xi also say the Russian and Chinese equivalents of "death to America", but I don't worry about the possibility of a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US.

India and Pakistan have attacked each other through proxies before, yet neither has launched a nuclear first strike on the other despite extreme levels of mutual hatred and the fact that both have nuclear weapons.

This is like saying you've never had any issues picking up pennies in front of a road roller.

I wish people would stop pretending there's no difference between these egomaniac dictators or near-dictators. Putin is a cold war veteran, Xi is a lifelong bureaucrat. Neither of them are islamic extremists.

Mao, however, repeatedly talked about how awesome a nuclear war would be- because China could absorb casualties and the west wouldn't, it meant communism would triumph. Didn't happen.

Mao also did the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which are a lot crazier than anything the Iranian mullahs have done.

I'm sure that Putin and Xi also say the Russian and Chinese equivalents of "death to America"

Actually not at all. It's not hard to find Chinese state broadcasts and nowhere does Xi say anything remotely close to death to America.

In fact the Chinese largely couldn't care less about America beyond the fact that we buy their shit and give them money for it.

I mean in private.

Of course claiming that a someone said something in private is completely unfalsifiable, but as a chinese, I can tell you that if you ask any chinese they would say you're out of your mind.

More comments

I mean in private.

What's your evidence for this? I mean, if you are "sure" that Xi says, in substance, "death to America" in private, there must be some evidence, right?

More comments

I'm sure that Putin and Xi also say the Russian and Chinese equivalents of "death to America", but I don't worry about the possibility of a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US.

India and Pakistan have attacked each other through proxies before, yet neither has launched a nuclear first strike on the other despite extreme levels of mutual hatred and the fact that both have nuclear weapons.

I'm pretty skeptical of all this.

Please provide links and quotes showing:

(1) Three times in the last 25 years that Russian leadership has done the equivalent to chanting "death to America"

(2) Three times in the last 25 years that Chinese leadership has done the equivalent to chating "death to America"

(3) Three times in the last 25 years that India has attacked Pakistan through proxies in a manner equivalent to Hezbollah or Houthi attacks on Israel;

(4) Three times in the last 25 years that Pakistan has attacked India through proxies in a manner equivalent to Hezbollah or Houthi attacks on Israel.

Three times in the last 25 years that Pakistan has attacked India through proxies in a manner equivalent to Hezbollah or Houthi attacks on Israel.

Without even claiming any particular expertise in the conflict, doesn't Lashkar-e-Taiba claim a number of attacks that resemble those of Hamas or its associates? The 2008 Mumbai attacks killed 175 people and had a movie made about it I've heard of in the West (Hotel Mumbai, 2018), and the 2025 attack in Pahalgam was the trigger for the most recent direct India-Pakistan conflict. Those are probably the two most notable incidents, but there's not a shortage of others, or other proxies.

I'm less familiar with the details, but wouldn't be surprised if India has similar proxies, but I can't think of any offhand.

Without even claiming any particular expertise in the conflict, doesn't Lashkar-e-Taiba claim a number of attacks that resemble those of Hamas or its associates?

I don't know about the situation, but I would definitely say that:

(1) If Pakistan's leadership regularly chants "death to India" and attacks Indian civilians through proxies, India would be totally justified in perceiving a serious risk to India from Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons;

(2) Even without the "death to India" chants, the same holds.

I consider it a revealed preference that Iran is willing to plunge themselves into darkness over pursuit of nuclear weapons. It's fairly clear that they can resist insurgency and invasion just fine without them and that they would be a lot less isolated if they weren't pursuing them, but they persist. They could have security just fine without them: they're not in Saddam's or Gaddafi's position, the IRGC survives despite decapitation. Their territory is huge and difficult to conquer.

They want nuclear weapons to service their global Islamic Chuddist revolution.

They had a growing nuclear medicine program, while facing sanctions which had the practical effect of limiting their medical imports:

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/12/iran-sanctions-medicine/

https://dw.com/en/iran-sanctions-mean-life-saving-medication-in-short-supply/a-74825554

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/iran-unveils-new-nuclear-medicine/

I disagree. They cannot actually resist invasion without them. They are perpetually one hawkish US administration that has enough political capital away from being invaded and replaced.

If the US committed to a ground invasion of Iran, the US would easily and quickly topple Iran's government. It would be like a world heavyweight boxing champion fighting a scrawny 15 year old. US soldiers would be in Tehran within a few weeks of the start of the conflict. What would follow would, from the point of view of the current Iranian government, be horrible. They have seen what happened to Saddam and to Gaddafi. They would be turned over to their political opponents, put on trial, their lives as they knew it over, some possibly executed. They're in danger of assassination every day now, but at least they still have power and the emotional satisfaction of not having been defeated. A US invasion would be the end of everything for them.

Would they like to use nuclear weapons in support of their global Islamic revolution? Sure. Would they actually use nuclear weapons in a first strike? I doubt it. When I look at their actual foreign policy in the recent decades, they haven't been acting like ISIS-type fanatics. The most reckless thing they did was to support Hamas too much, and then Hamas massacred a bunch of Israeli civilians, which made Israel unite even more than before around the goal of destroying them by any means necessary. But that does not necessarily mean that they follow a fanatical foreign policy any more than the fact that the US supported an Indonesian government that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the 1960s means that the 1960s US was following a fanatical foreign policy.

They have seen what happened to Saddam and to Gaddafi. They would be turned over to their political opponents, put on trial, their lives as they knew it over, some possibly executed.

What's interesting is that the Trump administration is the one administration that genuinely does not seem to care about if you are a "bad guy" or not – the Trump admin has been extremely functionalist.

However, the Trump administration can only do so much to bind the actions of a future administration, which creates a real risk for Iran.

I think on balance if they don't make the Trump admin a good offer (and they still can) they will come to regret it.

Some times I forget how naive and anti American many of the posters are on this forum. This take hugely discounts the tail risks of having an unstable country with a history of exporting terrorism having these things. What if the leadership changes in the future or some part of their government, or if it results in other middle eastern countries proliferating as well.

This take hugely discounts the tail risks of having an unstable country with a history of exporting terrorism having these things.

Iran exports less terrorism than the USA (probably) or the USSR (definitely) did during the Cold War. Unless you think that Israelis count for more than, say, Londoners, which I suppose the American establishment does. Both superpowers funded the IRA, although I suppose the involvement of Rep Peter King (IRA-NY) doesn't technically make the IRA an official US client group. Empirically, being a state sponsor of terrorism is not strongly correlated with being a country that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons under MAD.

Not for a lack of trying. If Iran had the resources of a peer-level superpower during the Cold War they'd definitely have tried to export their proxy model worldwide, not just in their local neighborhood.

It isn't Iran's model. It was first set out a written policy by the Kennedy-era CIA (the "plausible deniability" memo which would later be made public by the Church Committee) and had already been in use by the USSR since the late 1950's.

Some times I forget how naive and anti American many of the posters are on this forum.

I'm pretty sure it's not naivete or anti-American sentiment but rather an intense burning hatred for Jewish people and the resulting desire to support just about any country which is anti-Israel, even if (especially if) it increases the likelihood of nuclear war. Edit: My evidence for this is that there seems to be a big overlap between (1) posters who consistently side against Israel no matter what; and (2) posters who argue that a nuclear-armed Iran isn't a serious threat.

Yeah it's absurd. One of the greatest threats to the entire planet is Pakistan losing a war to India. Or winning a war to India. Or tripping over its own feet and having an economic crisis.

As soon as nukes are in play the country becomes an existential threat to civilization, even if the more likely outcome is hundreds of thousands to millions dead...that is not good.

North Korea does not represent the full range of nuclear countries, and we haven't even played that one all the way out.

Iran is far more likely to use it, sell it, or cause problems than any current nuclear actor and the inability to recognize this is simply horrifying.

Or having another member of technical staff go rogue like this guy did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

Or tripping over its own feet and having an economic crisis

This is called 'tuesday' and so far, no nuclear war. Seriously, Pakistan has a military coup every few years. It has subsaharan Africa level stability.

Iran is far more likely to use it, sell it, or cause problems than any current nuclear actor and the inability to recognize this is simply horrifying.

I don't think this is true - ever heard of the Samson option? I'd trust the Iranians with a nuke far more than Israel.

Samson is a defensive stance, Iran is an aggressive nation with offensive interests that present existential threats to its neighbor as well as more mundane severe threats.

Fundamentally Iran is a nation that is running around punching people in the face. Who is more problematic, the guy who can punch back hard, or the guy punching people in the face?

Samson is a defensive stance,

lol, lmao

Fundamentally Iran is a nation that is running around punching people in the face.

I'm surprised, I thought you would have kept up with news from the Middle East if you're going to talk about it with that level of confidence. This may come as a shock, but Israel is currently invading Lebanon, deploying white phosphorus on civilians, demolishing homes, blowing up hospitals and now moving settlers in to build houses on their newly acquired living space. They are in fact punching people in the face, right now! They have been punching people in the face for several years, and they launched the first strike on Iran.

More comments

It’s worth noting the extent to which America has exported terrorism:

Of the ~100 Islamic terror attacks in America since the 90s, virtually all of them have been Salafi-Wahhabi and none of them have been Shia (Iranian).

Agreed. Even if we accepted for the sake of argument that the Supreme Leader himself would not order a first strike, how confident are we in the rest of the Iranian regime's command and control infrastructure?

Even after you've decapitated half of their leadership, they're still acting more rationally than either the US or Israel, so quite a lot, actually.

Please define "acting more rationally"

What have they done that you think marks them as "more rational"? What specifically is it about of the US, Israel, and the Gulf States recent dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IRGC that you view as "irrational"?

Please define "acting more rationally"

"Acting proportionally to an aggression" for a start.

What specifically is it about of the US, Israel, and the Gulf States recent dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IRGC that you view as "irrational"

The bombing campaign in itself far exceeds anything Iran has done against US or Israel, and threatening to bomb their civilian infrastructure was psychotic.

More comments

Why can China be the biggest trading partner with most middle eastern countries without wasting trillions on wars? What has the US gained from all these wars? Supporting wars that flood Europe with migrants is anti war.

Iran wouldn't want nukes if the US wasn't meddling in the middle east.

The terrorists that bomb the west are Sunni groups that Iran is fighting. Iran helped defeat ISIS and fought all sorts of extremists in Syria.

That doesn't worry me any more than I worry about the slight chance of getting hit by lightning when I walk outside while it's raining.

Iran didn't have nukes before the war despite Netanyahu claiming the bomb is weeks away since the 90s. Currently 20% of the world's oil, several decently sized economies that invest heavily in the US, a large portion of global LNG, and 35% of the world's helium are under blockade. This is in order to fight a war to go back to the way things were two months ago.

Had Iran even wanted nukes if it wasn't for the constant threat of American war? The US needs to fight the enemies while the constant war creates the enemies.

This war could easily end up dragging on for an extended period of time. Nobody enters a war thinking the war will last for many years yet wars often do. The US could easily be stuck in a quagmire that drags on and becomes a story that never stops giving.

So if Iran doesn't want nukes then why is giving up enrichment such a deal breaker for them? They'd rather apparently be all killed than negotiate on this.

They do want nukes. No matter what one's opinion about the war is, and mine is against it, the fact is that they clearly want nukes. They would be insane not to want nukes. Having nukes is just better in almost every way than not having nukes, if you can afford the high price tag of building and maintaining them. For Iran's government nukes are the only possible way of guaranteeing their system's survival, other than a Russian or Chinese commitment to defend them in case of war, which does not seem to be forthcoming.

If its so clear Iran wants nukes (I agree). Why do none of the countries who, allegedly are parties to nonproliferation agreements, except the US do jack shit about it?

Having nukes is just better in almost every way than not having nukes,

I don't think this is the case based off of the game theory of nuclear weapons - the rational response to a country with significant interest in tremendously harming the West nuclearizing is to turn the entire country into glass regardless of casualties the minute it becomes obvious they'll nuclearize. The threat is too severe.

In real life the anti-nuclear taboo would prevent this from happening, but the moment Iran steps out of line the response would immense and civilization ending with tens of millions dead.

We barely made it out of the Cold War and that's with both countries not wanting to use nukes and both countries mostly believing that the opponent didn't want to use nukes (even if for no other reason than nukes = death for everybody).

But Iran wants to use nukes! Some people in the government might not even care if they get away with it because of the religious extremism.

The odds of everybody in the country dying are basically zero in the pre-nuke state. Hopefully the odds would be not great, but you'd have a very real chance of tens of millions of causalities post-nuke.

Having nukes would present at tremendous risk both to the people and the government.

Now, the government likely is totally fine with risking the entire population to persevere itself.

That's a pretty good indication to justify wiping out the Iranian government.

If you believe the Omani negotiator, Iran was willing to give up their stockpile and enrichment in exchange for sanction relief; that was likely the point of building the stockpile in the first place. Once the US tried to regime change them, the calculations shifted.

All the sources I have seen say the opposite - the negotiations leading up to military action was basically the US begging Iran to just give up on the nukes and Iran saying, "Nope, I'd rather die."

Laurence Norman, WSJ reporter in Germany, says, "My understanding comes from non-U.S. officials close to the talks as well as what Washington has said. This is what we have from 3 people."

Iran came to Geneva on Thursday with a draft text of a few pages as it had been asked. It did not permit the U.S. or others to keep the text. It was planning to do so Monday at the technical talks. But they talked through what was in it. But the draft text was not the key text

Attached to the text was a single piece of paper, which Iran described as its 10 year nuclear plan. The text was based around the idea that as Iran's enrichment needs expanded, it's enrichment should be permitted to expand. The paper set out an ambitious set of targets or expanding its civilian nuclear program. The new version of the Khondab reactor (formerly known as Arak heavy water reactor) would be completed. A number of other long-planned, never-built research and power reactors would be put into operation.

In order to fuel those supplies, Iran would need to run 30 cascades of IR-6 advanced centrifuges Tehran said. That's more than 5,000 advanced centrifuges. Iran would need to be able to enrich up to 20% to meet the demands. That is what Iran was proposing.

Let's compare that for a moment to JCPOA. For the first decade under that accord, Iran was permitted around 6.000 IR-1 basic centrifuges. For 15 years, its enrichment purity cap was 3.67%. In other words, Iran was saying the enrichment deal shld be weaker than the Iran deal.

I don't know why there are two such diametrically opposed narratives. I don't think there is any reason to believe the WSJ, which tends to be center left in the US, would try to run propaganda for Trump. I don't know what reason Oman might have to lie, except perhaps to increase their importance by making it sound like negotiations were going well.

Given Iran's past behavior regarding nuclear enrichment, I tend to believe the WSJ story as it is more in line with their past and present actions.

They agreed to 3.67% enrichment and then the US ripped it up; thus, ask for more next time. If you look at a graph of SWUs (ie effort/time input) versus enrichment percentage, it's not that huge a leap; the first few percentage points of enrichment are the hardest.

No, they didn't. The US offered to supply enriched uranium to Iran that is suitable for civilian use, a situaon similar to the UAE and Korea (two other nations that for various reasons have forfeited their ability to enrich fuel but still employ civilian nuclear programs). Iran rejected this - they want to be able to enrich their own.

Oman said, "Zero accumulation" which might be a trick of language. There is 0 accumulation if it all goes back into centrifuges. According to three other sources Iran had a 10 year nuclear enrichment plan which included:

  • Completing the Khondab reactor (formerly known as Arak heavy water reactor)
  • A number of other long-planned, never-built research and power reactors would be put into operation.
  • Tehran demanded the ability to run 30 cascades of IR-6 advanced centrifuges and enrich up to 20% to support their 10 year plan.

Everything keeps coming back to the idea that Iran completely misread how serious Washington is being when they say, "No Nuclear Enrichment."

If they just wanted to get out of the sanctions surely they could have at any point just said "hey, actually we would like to be more like Saudi Arabia, we will stop funding proxies and be chill" and any of the previous presidents would have tripped over themselves to get this deal.

Past precedent suggests that unilateral disarmament ends in your regime winding up like that of Gaddafi, not Saudi Arabia.

Which shows that they value having proxies over having nuclear weapons. Ultimately, trying to get nukes has been more trouble than it's worth for the Iranians; Israel can't invade them, the US pre-Trump wasn't interested, and it just led to a whole bunch of crippling sanctions. Khameini issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons which, presumably, meant something in a very fundamentalist society.

The sanctions surely would have come about in response to the proxy funding in some non-nuclear counterfactual. Maybe lesser sanctions. At the end of the day the idea that Iran would have been satisfied with being a normal country that gets rich with its combination of obviously smart population and natural resources is complicated by the fact that this option was always on the table and they turned it down. The regime has ambitions in the region, and lofty ones. And once you have lofty ambitions counter to a nuclear power's wishes then you need nukes or you fail somewhere in the escalation chain above where sanctions are involved. Needing to at least be able to threaten to have nukes is a a necessary component of any plan to accomplish their regional objectives, no way around it.

More comments

The bomb likely has been weeks away since who knows when. It still could be for all I know. Because they haven’t fully enriched is not evidence they can’t. It’s evidence that they continually chose not to do so. At this point, proceeding to make a few nuclear weapons is their best bet to not be attacked again.

It doesn’t prove either one actually, and it’s probable that Israel has prevented it more often than we know about (the Suxnet incident where Israel destroyed centrifuges). So it could be that they want to have nukes, and left alone would have them but they’re being artificially prevented. I don’t see why else they’d have such a fixation on nuclear power in the most oil rich region of the world and while being sanctioned for having nuclear energy. Especially given their reluctance to fully comply with inspections.

The things they’re doing certainly are consistent with wanting a nuke, and at least believing that one could be made in Iran.

I don’t see why else they’d have such a fixation on nuclear power in the most oil rich region of the world and while being sanctioned for having nuclear energy.

I'm not a supporter of nuclear power but this is actually extremely easy to answer - oil does not replenish itself on a timescale relevant to human life. If I have a gigantic pile of savings but no income, it would actually make a lot of sense for me to try and find a way to support myself before that gigantic pile of savings runs out.

I don’t see why else they’d have such a fixation on nuclear power in the most oil rich region of the world and while being sanctioned for having nuclear energy.

It's not even their fixation on nuclear power that they were sanctioned for, it's their fixation on uranium enrichment significantly beyond that which is needed for nuclear power.

Yes. I don't understand why we need to wait until they have 99% completed a bomb to take them seriously when they pony up to the negotiating table with their balls out and say "as you can see we have everything we need to build a bomb, including long range bomb delivery missiles; so, what are you going to to give us?"

The US having tactical military dominance over Iran can hardly be "stunning". The US not being able to translate military dominance into a strategic victory is, well, somewhat par for the course, but is in this case at least a bogey, and probably a double or triple given that the strategic loss on the Strait has fundamentally worsened our security/economy, by a lot, compared with pre-war.

I was going to say this as well. Congratulations on your "victory," I suppose. It seems pretty empty to me. Unless that's the kind of victory you were hoping to pull out of this situation from the beginning. Considering what the original war aims were, given that the US has still been unable to achieve it; I wouldn't call it a victory at all. All they're managed to do is destroy infrastructure.

Oil tankers are now filling up at American ports because we have oil and the rest of the world does not. America controls a near-majority of the world’s oil supply and has a surplus even if prices go up. We destroyed Iran’s military and are dictating terms. I guess America is losing because Europeans are mad it’s not going faster?

There's a big shift in how the American empire now functions. It used to be the source of stability, projecting Pax America over its sphere of influence. Even Iraq, not exactly a success story in nation building, was viewed more like a "good idea, terrible execution" mistake.

The new American empire is the source of instability. It's telling other countries, "You have to work with us, because only we can afford to fuck up the rest of the world and weather the fallout".

Take Qatar, for example. Did everything the US wanted, played its role of a small friendly petrostate heavily investing into soft power perfectly. What did it get for this? Iran destroying its economy and Trump telling it to suck it up. The only reason Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani hasn't publicly thrown in his hat with Xi after this is because there's a non-zero risk Trump might bomb Qatar after reading about it on X.

Everyone is going to start hedging their bets now instead of viewing being friends of the US as the safe default.

The only reason Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani hasn't publicly thrown in his hat with Xi after this is because there's a non-zero risk Trump might bomb Qatar after reading about it on X.

Are you referring to something specific or did you just make that up? Because publicly the Qataris are talking about how this is ruining their impression of Iran, not America. And privately nobody is contemplating anything close to America bombing Qatar. You think Trump just wakes up on Twitter and decides who to bomb? You aren’t being dramatic? Trump is on Twitter so you can hear his message, not the other way around. If you think differently maybe you also think the hooker has never seen one so big before?

The logic of the whole war is Trump stitched together a new Middle East coalition of Israel, Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain. This entails all working more closely with America which is how Trump got the buy-in to start the war in the first place. Did someone tell them that America is a partner of instability and everyone is moving out of America’s orbit? They didn’t seem to have gotten the memo.

So far none of these "coalition members" have been rah-rah about the war. What exactly are the Gulf states getting out of it? Two months ago, they were pumping oil and shipping it to their customers with no problems at all. Today, they have to join this coalition of yours, spend their oil revenues on air defense, on navies, on a land invasion of Iran just to go back to what is basically status quo ante bellum: pumping oil and shipping it to their customers with no problems at all.

The Sunni states hate Iran and have been informally allied against it for a generation. They are not amused that Iran is bombing them and they want to see Iran put down.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/israel-iran-war-uae-joins-bahrain-in-urging-unsc-action-on-strait-of-hormuz/articleshow/130050237.cms

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-891956

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8lzn2ejpjo

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/uae-minister-coexistence-with-iran-impossible-right-now-addressing-threat-essential-for-peace/

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/politics/saudi-prince-iran-trump.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/kuwaits-top-diplomat-blasts-irans-destabilization-of-the-region/

Stories like this are extremely common. The Gulf States do not want to be constrained by a rogue nation willing to blow up their international trade routes. They do not want Iran to toll the strait. They are happy to use America’s military to achieve their objectives. If your model here is that Saudi et al. were happy with Iran until America blew it all up, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. If you think Saudi et al. view this like European countries seething about everything Donald Trump does, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

I didn't say they were happy with Iran, I said they were happy with the status quo, that is, Iran shouting "Death to America" and funding proxies in various shitholes away from the Gulf. Iran didn't blow up their international trade routes or try to toll the strait, because it had a reasonable expectation that it would get attacked by literally every major country if it tried this without a provocation. But now the window of acceptable fuckery from Iran has been widened thanks to the US and Israel launching a decapitation strike.

More comments

US economy and stock market will be and are worse from the war. For the US, our own fossil fuel production and exports cushion the blow, but it is unambiguously an overall negative.

I disagree, that this is "unambiguously an overall negative"

There are geo-political considerations that go beyond just "make number go up"

That's AI slop.

As a rabid AI slop hater and slop hunter, I don't see anything too suspicious in this video when I look at the transcript. Additionally, gpt zero also scores it as a human.

The publication appears to be a real television station on the air in the UK, which is weak evidence against ai slop.

Are there any tells or other signs of AI that I missed?

It was originally a link to an AI slop tweet that included the video.

More comments

Did you watch the video?

The US is a major oil importer and the US exports oil because it imports oil, refines it and sells the refined oil. The US isn't energy independent because the US doesn't produce enough diesel. The US has more light oil that it consumes but not enough of other grades.

The US isn't dictating terms. The US is desperate to open the straight and has abandoned all its original goals and adopted Iran's demands as a basis for negotiating.

The US is desperate to open the straight and has abandoned all its original goals and adopted Iran's demands as a basis for negotiating.

Honestly I think if Iran played their cards right, thus might have happened. If iran opened the strait last week, then hung the threat of no deal = strait closes again over the negotiators heads.

But Iran insisted on playing stupid games and now it's unclear if Iran is willing to open the strait irregardless of what the US offers. Iran's semi-official media seems to imply that tolling the strait is a red line for Iran - which if true means no deal, even if the US was willing to give up literally everything else for the strait.

I think this is totally out to lunch and if you were right the US would have accepted Iran’s terms already

Iran's terms mean nuclear war in the Middle East probably within a decade. The US can't accept Iran's terms, neither can the force Iran to accept theirs. So the strait remains closed (soon by us too) until enough other nations decide to force our hand or Iran figures out how to make a bomb during the war.

If one saw the kinds of things that Indians and Pakistanis regularly say about each other, one could expect there to have been a nuclear war between the two countries by now. Yet there has not been one, even though both have been nuclear-armed since 1998 and they actually fought a conventional war recently.

Iran can’t make nukes because we can bomb their facilities faster than they can build them. Their options are to surrender now for good terms or later for worse ones

That only works until the build one we don't know about or that we can't bomb.

More comments

It's true that the US is a net importer of crude. In fact, the US tends to export light sweet crude and import heavy sour, because we have a lot of refining capacity for the heavy stuff that many other refiners don't have. But that crude is mostly coming from Canada, Mexico and South America, not the ME. And in January a bunch of Mexican heavy crude refining capacity came on line, leaving US refiners with a problem, at least until Venezuela happened. I rather suspect Trump knew all about that too.

The US having tactical military dominance over Iran can hardly be "stunning".

I am skeptical that many people of the strongly anti-Trump persuasion would have, two months ago, committed to a prediction of "The US dumpsters Iran's military with training accident levels of cost". I think we'd have heard a lot of rhetoric about how Hegseth is an incompetent, drunken Christofascist retard and that the US would massively underperform.

The US military hasn't dumpstered anything at all. No strategic goals have been achieved. No political objectives have been achieved. The straits of Hormuz have not been secured, nor have Iran's missile and drone capabilities been severely degraded. Their attack rate over the last 30 days before this ceasefire was fairly stable.

The US has the military capabilities a 15 year old gamer would seek: prioritizing K/D and cool explosions and 'ownage' moments like blowing up leaders in sneak attacks. Hegseth exemplifies this dimwitted outlook, obsessing about lethality and violence and devastation: 'back to the stone age'.

The US does not have the military capabilities of a serious power pursuing serious strategic objectives like territorial control, waging industrial wars over long spans of time to outlast and crush enemies. That's mutually exclusive with maxxing out K/D and all these flashy, ludicrously expensive and rare wonderweapons the US likes to focus on.

You don't need to kill your enemies to beat them. Killing helps but disorganized, shambolic killing isn't the key thing. The key thing is to defeat your enemy's plan, not just blow up their soldiers. Iran's plan, using their drone and missile forces to choke the straits, choke energy exports over the course of a long war that saps US political will remains intact while the US is going through plans at a rate of knots.

Trump crows about blowing up the Iranian air force and navy. Who cares? Is the Iranian air force the lynchpin of their plans, like the German luftwaffe in WW2? No. Their conventional navy also is not a big part of their plan. Destroying random bridges or power plants - not going to help.

nor have Iran's missile and drone capabilities been severely degraded. Their attack rate over the last 30 days before this ceasefire was fairly stable.

What a curious choice of cut-off! Sort of like counting Muslim terrorist casualties starting in 2002, isn't it? Very convenient how it lets you ignore the 90% dropoff from the first week of the war.

Don't worry. I'm sure Iran-senpai is just hiding his power level! He's baiting out Trump's secret moves before he unleashes his ultimate technique, which is... ????

You don't need to kill your enemies to beat them. Killing helps but disorganized, shambolic killing isn't the key thing. The key thing is to defeat your enemy's plan, not just blow up their soldiers.

Rose Tico-ass logic.

Trump crows about blowing up the Iranian air force and navy. Who cares? Is the Iranian air force the lynchpin of their plans, like the German luftwaffe in WW2? No. Their conventional navy also is not a big part of their plan. Destroying random bridges or power plants - not going to help.

Yes, their conventional forces have been dumpstered, their missile and drone options brutally degraded, they can't pay their people and the industrial base to rearm is a smoking crater.

All according to keikaku (keikaku means plan). Iran is definitely winning.

Very convenient how it lets you ignore the 90% dropoff from the first week of the war.

Oh, so the US has done no damage after the first weak of the war, in your view? All subsequent bombing has been ineffectual at further reducing their strike rate, after that huge 90% success? Maybe you're just not aware that the Iranian plan is to fight a long war, which necessitates not shooting their load in the first few weeks.

And the grand idea of what you're saying is that Iran's been totally smashed but the US navy is just too cowardly to secure the straits of Hormuz? They need to do a blockade out of Iran's strike range... for some reason. All those drones and missiles have been brutally degraded... But not so degraded that America can actually protect its bases in the Gulf. Not so degraded that American troops can quit hiding in hotels. Not so degraded that America can actually protect the oil facilities of its allies, protect the basis of the petrodollar.

Fantasy. After losing the last few Middle East wars against vastly inferior opponents, I would've thought the hubris bubble might've been pricked a little but noooooo...

Maybe you're just not aware that the Iranian plan is to fight a long war, which necessitates not shooting their load in the first few weeks.

They literally tried to. That's what a 90% drop off means.

And the grand idea of what you're saying is that Iran's been totally smashed but the US navy is just too cowardly to secure the straits of Hormuz?

Iran is doing Houthi stuff. They don't "control" the Strait, they're an unacceptable insurance risk.

But not so degraded that America can actually protect its bases in the Gulf. Not so degraded that American troops can quit hiding in hotels. Not so degraded that America can actually protect the oil facilities of its allies, protect the basis of the petrodollar.

Yeah, America needs to play like I do when I'm mopping up single player Starcraft. Zero losses, because I like the aesthetic, and because the world is full of people rooting for Iran to win and America to lose.

So no, you don't put a carrier where a cheap drone might do millions in damage and kill a sailor. You do shoot down the overwhelming majority of the "irregular militia" levels of attacks Iran launches. If one missile got through and blew up an empty truck every two weeks you'd still be right here sneering.

Fantasy. After losing the last few Middle East wars against vastly inferior opponents, I would've thought the hubris bubble might've been pricked a little but noooooo...

This is just fundamentally unserious. Those wars were smashing successes. It was turning the peoples who lived there into Minnesotans that we failed at.

Those wars were smashing successes.

I say this again and again and again and Americans still don't understand that wars CANNOT be a smashing success just by blowing things up. They have to achieve the political goal. War is politics!

Whether that's opening the straits, securing territory, installing a friendly regime, the goals are all-important. Blowing things up is only good in as far as it achieves those goals. If you fail at achieving your goals, you lose the war.

You do shoot down the overwhelming majority of the "irregular militia" levels of attacks Iran launches

That's not a thing. US missile defence consists of firing enormously expensive interceptors at cheap missiles and the cheap missiles still getting through, destroying enormously expensive air defence radars to the point that US soldiers are hiding in random hotels, to the point that the 5th fleet HQ is gone and US warships are slinking back in the Indian Ocean - unable to achieve their goal of securing the straits of Hormuz.

The US is losing the war, not least because Americans do not understand what war is fundamentally about and are very bad at it, due to this ignorance.

More comments

No strategic goals have been achieved.

The US has dramatically increased the availability of options for this conflict and future action.

If we want to leave and leave it to a coalition of local nations to ransack Iran? Much more feasible now.

If we want the regime to have very real tradeoffs between keeping the country functioning and rebuilding vs. missiles, drones, and rebuilding the military? It's a serious problem. The regime may be done from this alone, just not in a time horizon that the US needs for this specific moment.

Want to ground invade? Soften them up.

The amount and variety of stuff that we have destroyed is immense, the economy is in shambles... just because we haven't destroyed all the missile launchers doesn't mean that all those bombs were dropped on nothing.

If we want to leave and leave it to a coalition of local nations to ransack Iran? Much more feasible now.

If there's one thing this conflict has proven beyond doubt, it's the utter incompetence of Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are more than a match for Saudi Arabia, they're no match for Iran. Kuwait's biggest accomplishment was shooting down some friendly aircraft, they're hopeless. Oman and Qatar already were trying to cut a deal.

They're not ransacking, these loser countries are the ones who get ransacked.

just because we haven't destroyed all the missile launchers doesn't mean that all those bombs were dropped on nothing

You dramatically overrate US airpower. They routinely bomb 'nothing'. Scudhunting didn't work well in 2003, a good amount of US bombs would've been dropped on decoys in Iran too. You just can't tell from the air whether something is a real launcher or an inflatable decoy with some IR mimicking an engine.

Note also that this is why they keep on firing their missiles and drones. Because the air campaign isn't working. A country planning for and expecting a US air campaign for decades, with weeks and months to observe the US military buildup... is going to make extensive use of decoys and concealment.

The regime may be done from this alone, just not in a time horizon that the US needs for this specific moment

Come on. We've been told the regime is done for for years now, they've been saying they were about to be overthrown by the biannual protests. Remember also that this isn't America, they don't feel the need to make constructing or rebuilding anything 10x more costly and delayed than it needs to be.

The US dropped far more bombs on North Vietnam, to no avail. Bombing does not work like people imagine, it's not capable of achieving any serious goal alone. Certainly not the anemic sortie rate the US has been managing.

The Houthis are more than a match for Saudi Arabia

The Saudi coalition ended that war primarily because the Biden administration pressured them to (threatening continuing arms sales), not because of the Houthis. IIRC they weren't doing particularly well even before then, but the Houthis were at least accused of using hospitals as bases in the same sorts of tactics Hamas uses, and the NGO international response was largely the similar in its condemnation.

No argument from me that the other countries are idiots and would only make a mess - balkanizing Iran and running around pillaging would be a humanitarian disaster and is therefore a suboptimal outcome but it would get the job done.

No doubt that at times we've bombed inflatable decoys, but we've bombed plenty of infrastructure - both military and otherwise. Large factories and supply depots are static targets that are well within our ability to have targeted in advance. Even empty buildings need to be rebuilt.

The regime is economically hurting, that's one of the reasons we are in there now. Things that get destroyed now are going to be much harder to replace.

I don't remember seeing "the regime is done" for years. I have seen some credible argumentation that the situation is much, much rockier for them now.

Remember that is an isolated country that is about to be more isolated than it has ever been.

No argument from me that the other countries are idiots and would only make a mess - balkanizing Iran and running around pillaging

This seems like a whole parallel universe away from where we are. Who is running around in a balkanized Iran? Who is the victim here? The Gulf depends on desalination. UAE is a city in desert, food is imported. They are the Big Losers if this war goes badly, or just continues on its course. Iran can ruin them and they can't do much of anything. Arab troops aren't going to march out and invade Iran, they lack the motivation to fight Muslims for America and are no match for Iranians in battle.

Nobody is invading Iran, pro-Iranian militias are largely in control of Iraq.

Iran can get aid from both Russia and China by land routes, China is supposedly going to start sending MANPADS shortly, prompting more threats from Trump.

You seem to assume that Iran is a pushover, that the war is in a state of damage control, where humanitarian concerns are in play. Like deciding how much to kick someone who's already in the foetal position. In terms of power, nukes aside, Iran considers themselves to be in a strong position!

After seeing naked hostility from 'back to the stone ages' Trump/Hegseth, who is going to rise against the regime now? They'll instantly get tarred as Mossad traitors and face a very gruesome fate.

More comments

Probably, but most people of every political persuasion are extremely un-knowledgeable about military affairs. I think that smart people who follow military affairs knew how this war would go militarily because they paid attention the last few recent wars between the US/Israel and Iran. It's gone largely as I expected it to go, from a military point of view. Actually, Iran has done better than I expected. I did not expect them to still be capable of regularly launching effective strikes against their enemies after a month of US and Israeli air strikes.

Actually, Iran has done better than I expected. I did not expect them to still be capable of regularly launching effective strikes against their enemies after a month of US and Israeli air strikes.

FWIW, I would say the Iranians have proven more resilient on the ground than I expected (the US and Israel seem to be pretty hung up on permanently putting their bunkers out of business), but also that their air defenses have done more poorly than I expected. Saddam Hussein shot down more Strike Eagles than Iran has so far. Iran has shot down a lot of drones, though.

I mean, the US' planes being really good doesn't change that Hegseth does seem extremely incompetent and that the US has performed pretty badly unless you only count having a stronger army.

What’s demonstrates his incompetence?

That there really was no plan beyond "...and then the people will rise up and seize power." The US military should not have been taken so off guard that decapitation and a couple days of missiles did not topple the regime.

Except it seems like the military analyst concluded there was a real chance the people would not rise up.

Either way, seems like the military itself has performed fine. Now crediting Hegseth for that is probably unfair but blaming him for a political decision also seems unfair.

What's the evidence that the U.S. government had no plan?

The U.S. has a plan to invade Canada (back before people were talking about that as a real possibility). The plan not being very good, or not panning out as well as one hoped is not the same as their being no plan.

No plan, no plan for Hormuz, etc. are essentially memetic slurs.

It is not credible to assume that the world's largest military with a hard-on for over preparation didn't have a plan, or that one of the most well run and heavily motivated for this specific scenario militaries (Israel) had no plan.

Leaving the TDS angle aside, the conventional dovish view on Iran (which was also the official MAGA position during the 2024 campaign) was "Of course the US can curbstomp the Iranian military, but the consequence of winning is that you either have to occupy Iran (which would be a worse quagmire than Iraq) or you have a failed state on the shores of the Straits of Hormuz." Fundamentally, it was a prediction that Iran would end up like Iraq, but bigger, coupled with the long-standing and extensively battle-tested conventional wisdom that you cannot effect a regime change by air power alone.

Iran is exceeding my expectations in terms of its ability to put up a meaningful resistance to American air power, but the problem is that either America is planning to invade or they are not, and neither is a good outcome. If America bombs Iran back to the Stone Age but leaves the regime intact, then they can carry on obstructing shipping on the Straits of Hormuz with stone age technology (plus imported Russian or Chinese drones).

A boots on the ground operation wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a problem for Iran as it would be for the US. There's no long-term military solution for this problem from the American POV, but when you factor in Israel's designs for the region as a whole, you understand why we got involved in it (stupidly).

When the US-Afghanistan war/occupation was still going on but nearing it's end, there was an American soldier that asked some local there who had connections to the Taliban why he thought the Taliban would be back as soon as the Americans left; and his reply was "... Uh. Because we live here?..." You saw the same sentiment echoed after our withdraw by Suhail Shaheen when he said "... they (Americans) have all the watches, but we have all the time..." So go ahead. Put us in timeout for the next 20 years; we'll be back tomorrow... Unless you manage to completely eradicate the regime, the same conditions will continue to persist, just in a modified form.

Iran isn’t Afghanistan. I’ve been to weddings with people who flew in from Iran. Many are normal/high IQ types. Not goat fucking inbreds like Afghanis. There actually is a replacement elite in Iran to seize power.

There actually is a replacement elite in Iran to seize power.

They can't. Either they don't really exist to any significant extent and most Iranians support the regime (which, since they're Muslims, might well be). Or they're so completely disarmed and leaderless, and Iranian state capacity so great, that they can't even make a try at it when the US has bombed the hell out of the regime. Either way, there's no one who can replace the regime.

Negotiations are often slow. Even negotiating a share holder agreement for my startup took months with everyone involved actually being friends. The peace agreement is an enormously complicated agreement and far more difficult to pull together. There are plenty of edge cases, nuances, definitions and to debate. The only treaty that can be signed in a day is an unconditional surrender.

Trump ran into the same issue with Russia. There was no way he could end the war with Russia in one day. There are far too many issues and each issue has a long list of sub issues.

The leading theory on this forum a week ago was that Trump was losing so badly he would accept any peace deal as long as it was face-saving and he could declare victory.

He hasn't lost until he has signed. He is kicking the can down the road and not taking the hit and signing a peace treaty. The US should have pulled out of Afghanistan at least 18 years earlier than it did. It was easier to continue the war than to take the short term loss and accept defeat.

I fear that denying this will have me marked as some kind of rabid Trump fanboy who can’t deal with reality but I have to point out that oil was much higher during the 2008 crisis,

That caused over indebted people to default on their loans which then caused a multi year economic crisis. If the straight is blocked for months this could drive oil prices far higher.

He hasn't lost until he has signed. He is kicking the can down the road and not taking the hit and signing a peace treaty. The US should have pulled out of Afghanistan at least 18 years earlier than it did. It was easier to continue the war than to take the short term loss and accept defeat.

I note that one of the best things 1st-term Trump did was admit this and surrender to the Taliban. For face-saving reasons he had to sign the surrender agreement in the last year of his term, dated to take effect after he left office - I am not going to complain given that the alternative was continuing to throw good men and money after bad.

The peace deal broke down over nukes. If your theory is that the US has lost and will cave eventually your theory is that Iran will get nukes. I guess I’m wondering what the point of US foreign policy was if it turns out Iran had everything it needed to get nukes all along.

I don’t phrase it this way to be dramatic or difficult but I think this point of view obviously disproves itself if you model it out for more than a single step. We destroyed Iran’s military and are going to capitulate that they get nukes?

Negotiations are often slow. Even negotiating a share holder agreement for my startup took months with everyone involved actually being friends.

Yeah this is true in may contexts but there are lots of deals negotiated very quickly. Donald Trump made his name on them.

Like what are we arguing here? America lost so badly that they will have to capitulate but also the negotiations were a pretext so America could escalate, futilely, resisting the obvious conclusion? And the Israelis and the Saudis? What about the oil being rerouted around the straits? America’s growing ability to supply the surplus? Etc

I feel like my position is much more coherent and easily-worked: America won, Iran is full of intransigents, Iran has no cards left to play, America has lots left to play, and eventually Iran will either surrender or be destroyed.

Iraq doesn't have WMD, neither does Iran. I didn't fall for the first WMD war and I am not going to fall for it this time. In 20 years we will still be two weeks from Iran having nukes. If we don't want countries to develop nukes maybe a working strategy is to not threaten them with complete destruction.

What did The US win? They have lost access to the straight, driven up oil prices and not achieved any of the initial goals. The US is not safer with chaos in the middle east. US trade in the middle east won't improve.

What winning looks like is what China is doing. They are the biggest trading partner with almost every country in the middle east without having to waste trillions on forever wars.

"Iraq didn't have WMDs, and neither does Iran" is one of those "big lies" that your civics teacher should have warned you about.

Saddam Hussein's Regime had extensive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and expended a fair bit of effort to maintain at least the appearance of a limited nuclear capability (remember "dirty bombs"?). Furthermore, they actually deployed some of those chemical and biological weapons in the early phases of the invasion only for it to backfire badly on them because coalition forces were universally issued protective equipment while Iraqi soldiers and civilians were not.

Finally, while Iran may not currently have nuclear weapons, preventing them from getting them is fundamentally what this current conflict is all about. Both the US and the Saudis have ample geopolitical reasons for wanting to maintain the norm of "non-proliferation", while Israel and the UAE (quite reasonably in my opinion) regard the prospect of a nuclear-armed IRGC as an existential threat.

Furthermore, they actually deployed some of those chemical and biological weapons in the early phases of the invasion

Do you have a link for this? I'm not familiar with the claim.

They had old moldy stockpiles of chemical weapons that were in disuse. None were actually used in the 2003 invasion and the only effect was that some US soldiers ended up poisoning themselves when disposing of them because they weren't properly labeled. The old canard was that Rumsfeld knew about Iraq's WMDs because he still had his receipts from Iran-Iraq.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

In 20 years we will still be two weeks from Iran having nukes.

Ok so your theory is that the Iranians refused to agree to never develop nukes because….? Maybe Trump is lying? Elaborate

They have lost access to the straight

The American navy passed ships through yesterday to begin de-mining and is now going to blockade the Strait. If you think Iran with a vastly reduced navy can deny America’s navy from the strait I think you’re invested in some delusional media narratives.

What winning looks like is what China is doing

Nobody is impacted by Iran threatening the straits more than China. China was only able to industrialize in the first place with access to Irania oil.

Ok so your theory is that the Iranians refused to agree to never develop nukes because….? Maybe Trump is lying? Elaborate

At this point if Iran were smart, nukes wouldn't be off the table. If they had them, this war wouldn't have happened. You'd still be stuck with the problem of nuclear proliferation in the surrounding region; perhaps that would provoke future conflict in other wars, but the US and Israel would absolutely not be bombing Tehran.

Suppose the Iranians were sincere though. If you're dealing with such an erratic foreign policy establishment as the US has, even if Trump and Pezeshkian or Mojtaba came to a peaceful resolution (unlikely to happen), could the administration guarantee to them that future administrations will uphold the original agreement (almost certainly not)? In that case, what would you have Iran 'do' for it's security against western attacks?

In that case, what would you have Iran 'do' for it's security against western attacks?

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!

Iran hasn't developed nukes despite Israel kvetching about it for 30 years. Just like we needed a war in Iraq because of their WMD they are now selling us another regime change fiasco with the same lie.

The American navy passed ships through yesterday to begin de-mining and is now going to blockade the Strait.

They turned around after threats from the IRGC. The US navy failed to defeat the Houthis in a year of fighting and the US lost that war. This is far, far worse. There isn't going to be a battle with a winner. It is an asymmetric fight in which Iran can launch rockets and drones from hundreds of km inland along a thousand km cost and target ships. There is nothing that stops Iran from keeping to shoot. There is no winning. There is no defeating a decentralized war effort that takes occasional shots from a vast mountain region.

China has other oil sources and large reserves. Their economy is also far less oil intensive than the American one.

If your interpretation of events is that the American navy is running scared of the Iranian navy I really don’t have anything else to add. I don’t just think you are wrong and will be rebuked by events but have already been rebuked by events that have already happened.

Again, the US navy failed against the Houthis. The US had better geography in the red sea and a weaker opponent. The US navy runs into a major issue in both places. They can sit off the coast and get shot with no real way of actually winning. They can shoot down drones using several multi million dollar SAM that are in limited supply without achieving much. They are running into the same issues the US army ran into in Afghanistan except on a larger scale.

Besides, we have seen how the US military has failed at defending itself from incoming drones and missiles. The difference here is that there is a 5 billion dollar target on the recieving end.

From Kuwait to the Indian ocean is 1000 km. How many ships will this mission require? What will be the goal apart from having ships pass the same way they passed in January without the tremendous waste.

More comments

As far as I can tell the "negotiations" were just an excuse to avoid having to carry out "Power & Bridge Day"

The current cunning plan is to blockade the blockade and prevent Iranian or Iranian-approved ships from leaving. One might give this plan more credit if a month prior the same admin hadn't given Iranian oil sanctions relief under the pretense of reducing the pressure on oil markets. To flip-flop now guarantees the worst of both worlds: Iran still made billions from selling into the oil price spike and now the market is going to be hammered going straight from "peace in sight!" to "Strait even more closed than before!"

At least some oil bulls will get to eat lobster

My concern, as it has always been during this war, is why would there be hesitancy to do "Power and Bridge Day"?

If I was in the cabinet, I would have probably (I dont have their info) opposed launching the war. That is because, I'd have known that "Power and Bridge Day" would not only come, it would be necessary, early, and ongoing. Modern economies are all civilian/military mixes. You can't just target military and win. America has known this since at least Vietnam. Israel just had this happen in Gaza. If you aren't willing to destroy infrastructure, you aren't ready for war (and this is a minimum).

"Quantity has a quality of its own" is probably apocryphal, but it is true with bombing and artillery. To win you gotta just get rid of people in your way via death and maiming. You can't win a war being careful unless the opponent is a joke. This is even more true when the enemy is doing tactics like Iran is where they use your own success against you and domestic opponents are actually the threat. Proper warring is always going to turn the enemy territory into killing fields until the tactic of crying about civilian suffering is banished.

In increasing order of importance,

  1. Because hitting power plants discredits Iranian internal opposition and makes Pahlavi look like an archtraitor

  2. Because of legal issues and the risk of future prosecutions for war crimes, some proportion of the military might refuse the orders, possibly a significant enough proportion to make carrying out said orders untenable

  3. Because Iran is a big country with a decentralized power grid whereas the Gulf countries and Israel are tiny countries with highly centralized grids (and much greater dependence on desalination), the anti-Iran coalition doesn't have escalation dominance in a "War of the Power Plants"

Those (aside from #2 in a serious country) are valid concerns. But my real question is basically "how can you expect to win a war if you are unwilling to actually damage the opponent?"

What good is "power and bridge day" if it just kills a lot of Iranian civilians while the military retains its ability to fire missiles and drones? As far as I can tell, to the Iranian regime, most of its civilians are just useless bags of mostly water, and they could use the water elsewhere.

The military also uses power and bridges. And they even eat food. There is basically no such thing as a non military target.

blockade the blockade

I'm kind of amused now at everybody who was hyping up outrage and moral high ground at the original blockade. Like, closing a strait, that's beyond the pale, a war crime, clear justification for total war and carpet bombing, the rest of the world should rally behind Trump now right? Does Trump ever in any case go for keeping any moral high ground rather than 'What, they're doing the (supposedly bad thing) and we're not? Are we chumps or something? We gotta get in on this right now!'

Before Iran closed the strait, it was generally understood that customary international law required the strait remain open. After they closed the strait, the many nations of the world made it clear that there was no such custom, so Trump closing the strait is perfectly in line with precedent.

Though I suspect when the Truth Social post is translated to action, the US blockade will end up covering only Iran's ports, and so be in accordance with prior customary international law.

After they closed the strait, the many nations of the world made it clear that there was no such custom, so Trump closing the strait is perfectly in line with precedent.

Wasn't the precedent already set by the US in Cuba and Venezuela?

The US never closed any waterway; except one, all the ships it stopped were sanctioned and unflagged or showing a false flag. The one was Panama-flagged, carrying sanctioned oil, and stopped with the permission of Panama.

Iran can’t do anything their money because we destroyed their military

They can do many things with that money, even if they can’t use it on their military (which also isn’t true).

What does this mean? They still have thousands of missiles with launchers, they still have drones, they still have SHORAD, they still have hundreds of fast attack boats. If they had no military, the ceasefire would be unnecessary.

"Our airstrikes have achieved total success! The enemy supplies of chariots, crossbows, even their stores of black powder have been totally obliterated! Unfortunately we still need to figure out a solution to the ballistic missiles and suicide drones but if you exclude all of the weapons the enemy is actually using to attack us then we've destroyed their military"

Strait is still closed, you are impotent to resolve that. Genocidal threats, begging for help, counterblockades, general pathetic thrashing. Any timeline on actual solution? This is a costly chimpout for the rest of us.

This is a costly chimpout for the rest of us.

I think the term is "vae victis".

Indeed, though rather than applying to the US or Iranian governments it more aptly applies to the Occupiers of the Government who chose this war vs the Occupied tax cattle expected to pay the price for it.

Wasn’t America supposed to have surrendered and accepted terms by now? I thought mining the straits was supposed to be some death blow to American empire but apparently Trump is fine with blockading it himself

Your only rejoinder to the fact that America is losing is the fact that it hasn't surrendered yet? By this kind of logic, if I told you the US accepted a strategic defeat and begrudgingly pulled out of Iran, you'd still claim it's a victory because the Iranians didn't conquer the moon.

  • America destroyed 80-90% of Iran’s military in weeks
  • Lost one pilot and pulled off an unprecedented military operation within Iranian territory that made a mockery of Iranian integrity
  • America now controls a near-majority of global oil supplies while other countries face a deficit
  • America is about to blockade the straits itself, which was supposed to be Iran’s leverage against America

Sure yeah America is losing I’m sure we’ll surrender any day now

America destroyed 80-90% of Iran’s military in weeks

80-90% of what?

80-90% of missiles? No.

80-90% of drones? No.

80-90% of IRGC troops? No.

80-90% of fast attack craft? No.

And Iran has the largest missile arsenal out of any single other country in the entire Middle East... I actually wonder if I'm being trolled or not.

My understanding is that the US is depleting it's stockpiles and it's causing concern amongst the administration. Especially because our high tech conventional arms rely heavily on advanced guidance and strike systems, which are in turn dependent on accessing key supplies of rare Earth metals that are overwhelmingly found in China. Restocking and resupplying these munitions isn't a walk in the park. Those supply chains are extremely fragile and the dependencies on them is enormous.

More comments

Yeah... I'm definitely curious to know where you're getting your news from so all of these claims can be vetted.

Just to take one of your points as an example, I assume this is the rescue operation of the pilot in question that you're referring to? I hope you'll forgive me for doubting official statements made on this matter; because I'm not buying it. The massive show of force is highly disproportionate for a discreet personal recovery mission.

There's precedent for the US pulling out the stops in rescue operations.

It's definitely possible that the entire story isn't being told, but the rescue mission wouldn't be unprecedented.

I actually like history legends videos but he's definitely a pro russian shill. You have to take everything he says with a massive dose of salt.

More comments

The US government and mainstream news companies are reporting we infiltrated Iran to rescue our guy. You are not going to bait me into trusting some pimply YouTuber instead and I am not going to watch a 23-minute video to find out if he says anything interesting. Frankly this is embarrassing. It’s always possible if not likely that the official story covers up deeper truths but if you don’t believe basic facts about the war there’s nothing for us to argue about. Maybe the Iranians are marching on Washington as we speak.

More comments

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