This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do you have a link for this? I'm not familiar with the claim.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link