site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   26046 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.

2
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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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