site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26595 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

On the failed peace negotiations and the US blockade of Iranian oil

This started out as a reply to last week's CW post about the Islamabad negotiations having failed, but then I got into the blockade and decided to drag this to the new CW threat instead.

When Trump chickened out of becoming one of the top four genociders of all time by ending Iranian civilization, he called the Iranian ten point plan a "workable basis on which to negotiate". I was a bit surprised by that (call me naive for being surprised by anything out of of the White House), given that this plan was basically the wish-list of Iran, but then again I am not a "stable genius" master negotiator.

Honestly, I thought this was the best outcome the world was going to get. The world gets their dirty energy fix. Iran gets on the order of a dollar a barrel in transit fees, whatever. Perhaps Iran and Israel nuke each other in the next decade, but at this point I can not really bring myself to care -- religious crazies will do as religious crazies do, and the best thing the civilized world can do is to stay the hell out of it.

Presumably, at some point, someone in the White House thought to actually read the ten point proposal, and noticed that it would place Iran in a strictly better strategic position than before the start of Trump's special military operation. I am kind of amazed that they took 21 hours to realize that they had no overlap. I think Vance rejected anything which was not the miracle victory Trump would need not to get slaughtered in the mid-terms, and Iran was unlikely to budge on key issues such as the control of the strait or their nuclear program, whose strategic importance Israel and the US had just made blatantly obvious.

People have been pointing out that the Trump timeline was obviously never meant for production use for a decade, but lately things have been going to shit at an accelerated pace.

Now Trump has apparently announced that the US is going to block the strait of Hormuz. I wonder who could have given them that idea, and expect Trump to announce that the US will start enriching uranium next week and the US will start funding Shia proxies in May.

More seriously, a blockade is an act of war. Arguably, it is not only an act of war against the country being blockaded, but also against any neutral country who wants to peacefully trade with the blockaded country.

Not all blockades are created equally. When Kennedy blocked the peaceful trade of medium-range ballistic missiles between the USSR and Cuba, he could point out that actually this was a rather narrow blockade aimed to interdict a specific strategic weapon.

Iran's blockade is much harder to justify. Saudi oil being sold to Europe or Asia is not of direct military importance for any conflict Iran is currently fighting, their blockade is a weapon aimed at global trade itself. This makes them a rogue state and gives any country which trades oil with the gulf states a legitimate casus belli against Iran: simply send a single tanker under your flag through the strait claiming innocent passage. Either Iran sinks it, in which case you have war, or it does not, in which case you have no blockade.

The problem is that Iran does not exactly care, which is sound strategy given their situation. Blocking the strait is their one way to squeeze the balls of the world economy to exert pressure on the US, of course they are doing it.

Some strategists might notice that the United States find themselves in a slightly different situation than Iran. So far, they have not been considered a rogue nation willing to wreck the global economy to exert pressure on their opponents.

A US blockade of oil tankers bound for Iran would be as little justified as the Iranian blockade, but like the Iranian regime, they would probably get away with it. China is sadly not in the position to champion the free, peaceful trade between nations by sinking a few US aircraft carriers blockading Iran. Everyone can see that trying to end Iran's capability to block Hormuz will be a military mistake, trying to attack the US over their blockade will end just as badly.

Of course, this strategy will also not work very well for the US.

The Iranian blockade works because the median US voter reasonably cares more about the prices of gas than the regime in Tehran. Oil is the lifeblood of the economy, even a modest disruption will wreck the economy to a far greater degree than what a US presidency can survive.

The US blockade will not work because the Iranian regime cares a lot more about who rules in Tehran than their quarterly growth numbers. The US and Israel just spent tens of billions in bombing the shit out of Iran, with the net result of hardening their will to resist (if only someone had warned us!).

The idea that economic constraints might achieve what getting bombed did not seems absurd. Put bluntly, the regime in Tehran can survive a year with Hormuz being closed (especially as there are countries in whose strategic interest it will be to support them, even if they can't buy their oil, in the same manner in which NATO countries support Ukraine). The one on DC can not.

A chess grandmaster often has different objectives he achieves with a single move. Likewise, Trump has an uncanny ability to make strategic blunders which hurt American interests in a lot of different ways.

In the grand scheme of things, Iran does not matter. However, the US is just establishing that they consider broad trade blockades of enemies a legitimate strategy. This seems foolish not just in principle but because there is a country which matters which might be vulnerable to blockades, which is Taiwan.

(So far, China has been the adult in the room, refraining from any special military operation adventures. The CCP might be evil and bend on world domination, but at least they seem competent. Xi Jinping seems to have object permanence and an inclination to stay out of social media, both qualities which I find aesthetically pleasing in world leaders, and as far as avoiding a paperclip maximizer goes, I trust the CCP more than I would trust Altman, Zuckerberg and Musk. Still, looking at this timeline, it seems sadly possible that Xi Jinping might decide to walk in the footsteps of other elderly world leaders and decide to fuck up the world a bit before he exits the stage.)

Purely on capabilities, it does not matter if there is a precedent for a blockade of Taiwan or not. But narratives matter, especially when allies are concerned. Before, China blockading trade to Taiwan would have been an outrage. Now, they can simply point out that just as the US prohibits Chinese oil tanker from approaching Iranian ports on pain of war, China is blockading western container ships approaching Taiwan.

The CCP might be evil and bend on world domination,

A bit of a nitpick I know but the CCP is not bent on world domination. They want the South China Sea islands and Taiwan but they don't want the network of bases and patronage world domination would require. Iran has a much more extensive list of allies, proxies and bases then China does on a paltry budget. If China wanted the type of influence the Soviets had they could have it but they don't. They are happy to sit in China* and make money. For example A see the Syrian civil war.

*That being their definition of China of course.

People are increasingly realizing they cannot sit in China and keep making money without major disruptions. See Iran, Netherlands (Nexperia), Venezuela, and Panama for example. The inertia is strong (the propaganda of China as peaceful and non-expansionist runs deep but it’s delusional, Chinese empires have historically expanded to the maximum extent permitted by technology, chiefly the military technology and information technology required to maintain hierarchical bureaucracy). I doubt the non-expansionism can stay mainstream for much longer as the country’s power keeps growing.

I've yet to read a convincing argument for why China or the Chinese people are incapable of building an imposing global empire. It has not happened yet, which is a good reason to believe China is not currently in possession of an empire with specific qualities. Empires aren't built in a day! I would like to know the essentialist reasons why China is limited in this way due to immutable characteristics, culture, geography, etc.

Most of the Western perspective I read on this boils down to:

  • Chinese (Han) culture is very old and this is trustworthy.
  • China is big and has many people. Most of its attention was focused inward to manage these two things between bouts of bad things, or it is big enough/vain enough to be understood as more satisfied/less ambitious.
  • China preferred tributary styled hierarchies for dominance. (My intuition is this is more based on historical constraints that no longer exist, but that's not to say I suspect China will look to deploy 1 million troops to each nation it trades with tomorrow.)
  • CPC has Marxist-Leninist anti-colonial anchors. (Does anyone think that really matters?)

America also tends to avoid direct control in most of its imperial relationships and, as @Tanista wrote, was also once disinterested in far away interests. I can buy that the CPC today is not interested in certain ideological impositions as something like liberalism in the 20th century. I'm less sure this is something to bet the future on. The CPC is young and young upstarts tend to create ambitious men that shape new understandings. Romanize, Anglicize, Liberalize-- all verbs developed during a process of expansion. The broader understanding of Sinicization as limited to an economic context similarly feels overstated to me, and maybe just wrong.

Are the constraints that helped shaped a Sinocentric understanding, material or otherwise, a thousand years ago the same as today or tomorrow? Also, is it really the case that the European psyche is, in fact, the only type on Earth prone to use something understood as unpleasant coercion in a global or imperial context? I doubt this, but maybe there's a good reason to believe it. To me, ambition, inertia, and the largest navy in the world all seem like very powerful things to bet against, to assume a kind of ceiling in ambition to shape the world based on cultural vibes, history, geopolitics, or what have you.

I've always found it an irrelevant point. At one point you could also say that the US didn't want to get involved in the world domination business and wanted to just make money and control its near abroad.

Jumping off that thread, I read Nadhim Zahawi's article making a case for this war. Some highlights:

The reality on the ground inside Iran was stark. By mid-2025 Iran was assessed to have had nearly a thousand pounds of 60 per cent enriched uranium. This is so close to weapons grade, that American intelligence said that the Iranians could have fuel for a bomb in under a week. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) thought it could make enough for nine weapons. They were likely days, not years, from the bomb.

Now, picture what would have happened if they had actually crossed that line. A nuclear Iran doesn’t just get a weapon. It gets a shield. The IRGC and the Houthis could control the Strait of Hormuz (as well as the less often discussed Bab-el-Mandeb Strait between Yemen and Eritrea, connecting the Red Sea from the Gulf of Aden), and forever dictate terms to ships with infinitely more certainty than their threats today are armed with. Hezbollah operates with nuclear cover. The Gulf states face a simple choice: bow or build their own bombs; Saudi Arabia has already said it would. A nuclear cascade across the most volatile region on Earth would follow.

Iran's to-do list

Worst of all, the conflict we have just seen to defang the regime suddenly becomes impossible. This is exactly why the ayatollahs wanted nuclear weapons in the first place. Then the axis of resistance, led by China and Russia, can hold the region to ransom and make any Western intervention in Ukraine, Taiwan or elsewhere even more difficult. Suddenly, short-term oil price hikes don’t seem so existential.

So how did we nearly let it happen? Tehran executed a brilliant strategy, with extraordinary patience, over two decades. The ayatollahs pursued a deliberate multi-track approach: building a regional proxy network of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias, to name but a few, that made the cost of confrontation appear unbearable.

Then a stroke of unforgivable Western naïveté – Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This gave the Islamic Republic both international legitimacy and billions in sanctions relief, while tying Western hands. The JCPOA deliberately excluded both the missile programme and Tehran’s regional behaviour. Many of us warned at the time that Iran would use the breathing space to fund proxy operations and accelerate ballistic missile development. That is exactly what happened.

So when we assess the conflict, which is likely far from over despite the ceasefire, we should consider not just the way it was carried out, or the consequences of action. We must consider the counterfactual of inaction. And we should rebuild a British foreign policy landscape that is capable of considering the different outcomes and the impact that they might have on the British national interest.

What would be the effect on our energy security, our trade and investments – and above all the safety of our people – if this intervention, or indeed any other, had not happened?

This hinges on the premise that a war with Iran was a matter of when, not if.

FWIW 400+ kg of 60% enriched uranium is hard to justify for civilian use (feel free to correct me), so the only thing this write up convincingly argues is Iran was definitely building a bomb. But I see no evidence that they were mere days away from a deliverable warhead. What about pit fabrication, warhead integration, missile delivery, and testing? Re Houthis, there is no historical incidence where other nuclear powers (say, Pakistan) offered nuclear cover to their proxies. And given that Saudi Arabia lacks Iran's enrichment infrastructure, a nuclear Gulf is how many years away after a nuclear Iran?

Notwithstanding @Shakes intemperate declarations of an ever secure victory under President Trump, I want to believe that paying NZ$80 for half a tank of fuel is a small price to pay for less savory alternatives but none of it makes sense unfortunately.

Isn't Saudi thought to have access to pakistan's nukes on demand? And Iran, unlike other nuclear powers except, for a brief period, red China, is run by true believer fanatics. USSR decision makers were nominally communists, but in reality cynical self-interested alcoholics. Israel's strategic program is governed by realpolitik, it doesn't seem to be the politically captured part of the state.

Isn't Saudi thought to have access to pakistan's nukes on demand?

This is more hedging than operational reality. The formal text is intentionally vague, because Pakistan's arsenal was always India focused with tight command controls. Actually handing over warheads would likely trigger many political, technical, and NPT headaches that make the whole operation look more like signaling than a ready-to-go umbrella. Also Pakistan is literally on Iran's doorstep. Allowing the Saudis access to their arsenal to explicitly counter Iran might prompt a military response from Iran and support for proxies in Balochistan. And Pakistan doesn't want that obviously.

Isn't it accepted that most USSR leaders are actual communists?

Here is a summary from /r/AskHistorians

The difference compare communist to Iran's fanatics is most on what their believe system require them to do, where Iran seems to believe destorying infidel is OK while USSR's communism still believe in saving proletariat of capitalist states

It was also sitting under the rubble of Isfahan since last June; no indication that they were even trying to dig it out. Because it was a bargaining chip (until now).

Nuclear blackmail also doesn't work the way the author thinks it does. Why doesn't North Korea say "Give us $100b and lift all sanctions or we nuke South Korea and Japan"?

Nuclear blackmail also doesn't work the way the author thinks it does. Why doesn't North Korea say "Give us $100b and lift all sanctions or we nuke South Korea and Japan"?

Because they're afraid the US would say "Go ahead, make my day". If South Korea was making the decision they might well pay it. Israel, to Iran, is in the position of South Korea.

South Korea is perfectly capable of annihilating Pyongyang even without nukes. The threat simply isn't credible. America could not have threatened the Soviets and Chinese with nukes to get them out of Vietnam, and Nixon's madman theory made him look pathetic instead.

Annihilating Pyongyang with what? North Korea could shell Seoul intensively with their artillery, nevermind nuclear attacks. A few measly ballistic and cruise missiles are no match for conventional artillery in just wrecking whole areas.

I'll leave larger-scale analysis to people like Dean that are competent for it, but for specific facts:

FWIW 400+ kg of 60% enriched uranium is hard to justify for civilian use (feel free to correct me), so the only thing this write up convincingly argues is Iran was definitely building a bomb.

Iran argued it was for medical/research purposes. I'm not convinced that's a useful distinction, but it means that there's a limit to how much you can persuade people with it.

But I see no evidence that they were mere days away from a deliverable warhead. What about pit fabrication

There's probably some classified issues related to this matter, but the public information suggest that the machining is annoying and dangerous, more than it's difficult or time-consuming.

missile delivery

The Diego Garcia strike was multiple thousand miles away, and while it probably reduced the weapon payload for that missile, that reduced payload is within the plausible weight class of a serious nuclear weapon. It wasn't successful, but something something horseshoes and hand grenades.

Again I disagree that this is going badly for the US, and actually think it might strengthen our geo-political position overall

Prior to the US announcement, the closure of the straights was effectively a selective blockade where in the Iranians and their trading partners were afforded safe passage but no one else was. The US position here is that if the straights are going to be "closed" than they are closed to everyone. As a parent of small children I have to say I sympathize, if you kids can't play nice nobody gets to play.

Trump, Vance, Rubio, Et Al. are wagering that the people who've been buying Iranian oil are more likely to put pressure on the regime to concede the nuclear question than they are to risk a shootout with the US Navy.

Granted this is a gamble, but it seems like a reasonable one all things considered.

Again I disagree that this is going badly for the US, and actually think it might strengthen our overall geo-political position

Strengthens our relationship with the Arab states, weakened it with England, France, and Italy (Germany seems to be in "Keep calm and allow overflights" mode, so maybe no change there), broke it with Spain. However, since England and France appear to be utterly useless (Starmer is announcing a "summit to advance work on a coordinated, independent, multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends"; how not-the-bee!), it might be a reasonable trade.

The US position here is that if the straights are going to be "closed" than they are closed to everyone.

Just the opposite; they're closed only to ships visiting Iranian ports, and Iranian mines (if there indeed were any) are being cleared.

I won't do the post again because I did in last weeks culture war thread; but I chickened out and pulled out my fuck around money except for a couple few thousands; which I immediately "reinvested" (read: made stupid las vegas style put it all on 00 throws) in "What if Trump is a retard, all the people around him are pussies, and enough retail investor sucker conservatives are so bought in to the bit that they fall for it again again again again again", bet it all super aggressively (Ie, had my burmese investment manager at my bank do it) and what do you know!

It's funny to me that you can print money by thinking "What would the stupidest, most harmful to their stated interest thing that the ruling party in america could do", bet on them doing that, and 4/10 times they do it; with an additional 3/10 chance they achieve levels of stupidity beyond your pathetic imagination.

It really softens the blow from the country I live in becoming more dysfunctional, more indebted, poorer, and weaker on the global stage when I get some dollars out of it.

I think this whole analysis is built on false assumptions frankly.

Presumably, at some point, someone in the White House thought to actually read the ten point proposal

The alternative explanation is that the ten point program listed by the Guardian is not the ten point program Trump was referring to. That instead of almost agreeing to a total Iranian victory, that US negotiators were informed of Iran's willingness to concede on most points. Then instead of needing to invent an explanation for why America seesaws from day to day (I guess Trump just didn't have any goals when he launched this war so he's fine with giving Iran more than what they started with?) -- we can actually be totally reconciled to other facts:

  • American negotiators claiming they and Iran agreed on all points except for Iran giving up nuclear weapons
  • Iran's navy and military being substantially destroyed.
  • Saudi et al. backing America in finally dealing with the Iran problem

Heck, the Guardian article itself notes that the English version they are describing is different from the Farsi version on the question of nukes, so why are we taking it for granted that it's the Iranian negotiators who are trustworthy? Why are we repeating uncritically claims made by Iranian government officials when they contradict American officials?

People here really don't like when I phrase it this way, but this really is a form of TDS. America is presumed to be acting in all manner of irrational and stupid ways because Trump is the President. Any evidence that America is acting according to some kind of consistent logic or with the consent of its allies has to be explained away or ignored, because we all know that America is irrational because of Trump. Trump accepts Iran's victory one day but not the next day? It can't be the case that reports of Iran's victory and America's surrender were greatly exaggerated. No, it must be the case that Trump got bored.

One interpretation of the Iran War: Trump stupidly launched a bad war, and he didn't have any plans for the war, and the Israelis and Saudis didn't warn Trump because they're scared / selfish, and all reports that the Saudis wanted this war too are fake news, and although we destroyed Iran's military Trump understands that we lost, and he wants us to surrender to Iran ASAP, but JD Vance didn't get that memo because Trump is bored with the war and not paying attention, so now Trump is doubling down to save face, which won't work because everyone in the world knows he's lost!

Another interpretation: America is winning and the idea that we are about to sign a surrender deal to Iran is fake news.

Purely on capabilities, it does not matter if there is a precedent for a blockade of Taiwan or not. But narratives matter, especially when allies are concerned. Before, China blockading trade to Taiwan would have been an outrage. Now, they can simply point out that just as the US prohibits Chinese oil tanker from approaching Iranian ports on pain of war, China is blockading western container ships approaching Taiwan.

This is just fantasy by the way.

America is presumed to be acting in all manner of irrational and stupid ways because

they are acting in all manner of irrational stupid ways.

Firstly they started this war thinking that the Iranian people would rise up and overthrow the regime, which was stupid. Then they go back and forth unsanctioning Iranian oil to lower fuel prices, proposing dual control of the straits, now blockading Iran, threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, then constantly rolling back threats.

It's a pathetic display of weakness and stupidity as some very mediocre intellects thrash around trying to escape a self-inflicted blunder. It's exceeded only by cheerleaders dressing up the flailing as 4D chess.

Firstly they started this war thinking that the Iranian people would rise up and overthrow the regime, which was stupid.

They started this way saying that the Iranian people would rise up, but how do you know what they think? I think you should accept that the plan is above your pay grade. You’re basically conflating contradictory press statements (a chaos Trump is known to harness) with contradictory purpose.

It's a pathetic display of weakness and stupidity

Does Iran know that? They inaugurated a cardboard cutout as supreme leader the other week btw

The fact that the current plan is to fight to return to the status quo ante suggests that the plan has gone wrong

Does Iran know that? They inaugurated a cardboard cutout as supreme leader the other week btw

So America is getting humiliated by a cardboard cutout?

Which predictions would come true if Iran is humiliating the US here? I want to take the opposite bets.

People here really don't like when I phrase it this way, but this really is a form of TDS. America is presumed to be acting in all manner of irrational and stupid ways because Trump is the President.

Your president threatened to destroy the Iranian civilization overnight.

Most people who use language try to transport meaning rather than just fill the silence. Do you think Trump tries to transport meaning with language?

Generally, a threat is only effective if your opponent believes that you are willing to act upon it. If I threaten to cast a fireball at someone, that will weaken my negotiation position because they will assume that I do not have the ability to conjure fireballs. This will increase the probability that any other threat I subsequently make will be likewise idle.

Do you think that Trump was willing to follow through with his threat to end the Iranian civilization? If so, that would make him one of the most evil men in history, and you might as well claim that people in the 1940s had a Hitler Derangement Syndrome.

Or do you think he was bluffing? If so, do you think Iran bought his bluff? Why would they not recognize the bluff when you or I would probably concede that it was unlikely that he was going to nuke Iranian cities? How does the inability of the president to make credible threats help the US, strategically?

In general, what is the purpose of him setting deadlines and making threats on social media? Presumably he has a more direct channel to Iran. Iran certainly seems to be able to conduct their war and negotiate without making dramatic tweets and flip-flopping in public every few days. Is he intentionally trying to come across as unhinged and unreliable? Why?

Or take the Greenland debacle. Trump could have achieved the same outcome, i.e. learning that Denmark is unwilling to sell Greenland to him entirely through diplomatic channels without it ever making the news. What does he get out of it? Is the goal to seem like a buffoon who has no idea how the world works? Or was it net-positive for the purpose of signaling something to his constituents?

I don’t think ending the Iranian civilization (which I take him to mean destroy their energy infrastructure) is more evil than Iranian’s attempt to restrict the global energy infrastructure.

I also think destroying energy infrastructure is relatively commonplace in war and isn’t something particularly heinous. Yes, it would’ve caused significant harm to the Iranian people but that’s war. It is a legit military target which separates it from killing camps.

ending the Iranian civilization (which I take him to mean destroy their energy infrastructure)

I truly don't see how you arrived at that interpretation. Why not interpret "ending the Iranian civilization" as ending the Iranian civilization?

Because the president was talking about blowing up their energy stations and bridges. It was context.

President Trump is going to destroy Iranian civilization? Sounds serious sounds like Iran should surrender.

Most people who use language try to transport meaning rather than just fill the silence. Do you think Trump tries to transport meaning with language?

It is simultaneously the case that:

  • President Trump would have done “it” if he felt he had to
  • “It” was probably not a genocide of the entirety of Iran but a devastating attack on Iran’s infrastructure that would have taken a generation to recover from
  • The strategic ambiguity between those two options is useful for achieving President Trump’s aims
  • But, again, Trump would have done it if it felt like it

I think I’m supposed to cower at the subtext here that this would have made Trump “one of the most evil men in history”. I don’t care actually. This is war. Trump is going to destroy Iran if they don’t surrender? Sounds like they should surrender then.

This is honestly the “correct” attitude to have. Trump actually gains power from a hyperventilating body politic that believes he’s gone crazy. Since it works, it’s rational. So I can sit here calmly discussing it without having to condemn it. In order to make madmen theory work some people have to believe that you are mad. But I can also take a step up and look at a strategic view and say “this is correct”.

Every time a politician says Trump has gone mad and we need to stop him he’s really going to do it we can’t stop him he’s mad impeach impeach 25th 25th where’s Vance where’s JD Vance Chuck Schumer we need you oh my God we can’t stop him — well yeah you’re making Trump more powerful. Iran sees that btw. Trump could destroy them tomorrow and nobody is coming to save them. Well, maybe they shouldn’t negotiate I don’t know, maybe they should shake their heads about what is the world coming to, what happened to decency and common sense.

Presumably he has a more direct channel to Iran. Iran certainly seems to be able to conduct their war and negotiate without making dramatic tweets and flip-flopping in public every few days.

Have you seen Iran’s LEGO Epstein AI rap videos? They’re pretty catchy. What I mean is, this isn’t true at all the Iranians change their demands daily.

Look, in fairness, you’re right we don’t know what backchannels Trump could have used instead or whether he could have talked to Iran / Denmark privately. That’s why I’m not going to quarterback him. There’s obviously a logic at work here and it’s pretty easy to see it, although I want to avoid falling into the trap of plan-trusting when this is more like watching a lion in top shape hunt as his fancy strikes him.

Trump has achieved a lot of amazing successes and I think he’s smarter than me. So it’s correct to sit back and learn something. I think a problem on The Motte is that everyone is used to being the smartest guy in the room and assumes they don’t have much to learn from anybody. I mean this in general although it very obviously applies directly to Trump.

Your president threatened to destroy the Iranian civilization overnight.

Yes, because it is the opinion of many in the Trump administration and in the Gulf States that a depopulated Iran is preferable to letting the IRGC have nuclear weapons. "Proportionality" is a courtesy not a moral precept.

The purpose of deploying that threat was to get the Iranians to the negotiation table. Think of it like a police officer shouting "stop or I'll shoot". And you know what, it worked.

Watching the same people who were screaming about the coming genocide a week ago flip to calling Trump a pussy/loser for failing to follow through has been a trip.

Most people who use language try to transport meaning rather than just fill the silence.

I think most people are just trying to manipulate other people with mouth noises rather than transport meaning.

Do you think Trump tries to transport meaning with language?

Yes, but he is also trying to manipulate other people. But the likely meaning can often be teased out with effort; for instance, I was able to predict the actual meaning of his threat to close the Strait.

Do you think that Trump was willing to follow through with his threat to end the Iranian civilization?

No. He would have done something, but not anything like that; no advantage in it for him.

Or do you think he was bluffing? If so, do you think Iran bought his bluff?

It was not bluffing like poker, but chest-beating like primitive primate displays. It appears to have partially worked, getting them to the table but not getting them to yield on key points.

Or take the Greenland debacle. Trump could have achieved the same outcome, i.e. learning that Denmark is unwilling to sell Greenland to him entirely through diplomatic channels without it ever making the news.

I can't know his inner thoughts, but I would suspect Trump thought (incorrectly) that Denmark would be more willing to sell Greenland if he made it public.

The alternative explanation is that the ten point program listed by the Guardian is not the ten point program Trump was referring to. That instead of almost agreeing to a total Iranian victory, that US negotiators were informed of Iran's willingness to concede on most points.

Exactly. The ten points the Guardian is referring to is almost certainly the one Iran sent last week before the ceasefire, it had to be significantly reworked by multiple parties (Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey) on tuesday to be considered an acceptable starting point for negociation by both parties. So it is not "the same" as Iran's demands. I don't think anyone has published the accepted one, at least not that both sides have confirmed "yes, this is what we agreed on for the ceasefire". So we don't know what it was, so whatever people assume it was is just a confirmation of their prior biases.

Yeah I generally try to refrain from basing my opinions on breaking news or the latest updates, because they're so prone to error or emotion or rumor. So much of it ends up not being true. But if we were to do a full and open blowout of such content, it would imply a much larger world than the simple failures proclaimed by most posters here. Scrolling twitter casually, I see Trump saying the blockade only covers Iranian ships and ports. I see a report that the Iranians might actually concede on nuclear weapons. I see an Iranian minister whining that Trump's blockade violates international law so he shouldn't be allowed to do it. So many potential leads. They would all imply America is winning. And if we are going to accept half news as evidence, we basically have to apply our skepticism entirely in one direction to get the one-sided American Defeat theories I see all day on the Motte.

More seriously, a blockade is an act of war. Arguably, it is not only an act of war against the country being blockaded, but also against any neutral country who wants to peacefully trade with the blockaded country.

This doesn't follow.

The UK blockaded Germany during WW1 and WW2, and it's not like this was the UK was declaring war on the entire world by doing so. The US is just moving to option 4 in the escalation ladder list. Blockading a country from trading with neutrals is generally seen as acceptable wartime behavior, and although it can cause consternation with 3rd parties, it's not seen as overtly hostile to them.

The UK did not have to declare war on the rest of the world because the rest of the world was in no position to break their blockade.

Germany tried something similar with their unrestricted submarine warfare. Now you can argue that this was less of a proper blockade (U-boots are not suitable for searching vessels for contraband, so their only option is to sink any vessels). Still, it is kinda the same thing.

The US was very much not considering the sinking of their trade vessels as blockade runners a legitimate tactic, and rather promptly declared war on Germany. I have met few people who consider this an error in judgement. Sinking the ships of any nation is likely to piss them off and attack you.

If one Latin American country was blockading another one and courteously informing the US to keep their merchant vessels out of the blockade zone, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the US would simply shrug and say 'well blockades are a legitimate wartime tactic, they surely mean no hostility towards us'. Instead they would send a carrier group.

Also, both the U-boot warfare and the blockade of Germany would be war crimes by the standards of today, because we have decided that using hunger as a weapon of war is bad. From this, one could construct an argument that a belligerent should be allowed to sell sufficient civilian goods to earn the funds to buy humanitarian goods for their population.

Personally, I find broad economic blockades distasteful because they are simply not very targeted measures. It is basically like bombing a tenement and hoping that some of the people you hit happen to be enemy soldiers. Targeted blockades (for example, rf transceivers used in drones) seem a lot less bad -- though obviously also hard to pull off, because a single container of rf transceivers will probably supply the Iranian army for a long time.

Germany tried something similar with their unrestricted submarine warfare. Now you can argue that this was less of a proper blockade (U-boots are not suitable for searching vessels for contraband, so their only option is to sink any vessels).

I need to re-read Admiral Bauer's Das Unterseeboot, but despite his rather obvious bias, he makes two credible points: the German blockade should have been considered legitimate, and Germany should have never made the concession that its submarines follow the rules of cruiser warfare early on.

Sinking the ships of any nation is likely to piss them off and attack you.

That doesn’t seem to be the case these days, at least when Iran is the one sinking the ships.

Unrestricted submarine warfare was very much not the same thing. It was obviously departing from existing blockade law; the debates were over how much could and should be done to enforce those laws. Note that the first few incidents were handled with reparations and apologies rather than a declaration of war.

In your hypothetical, the U.S. might or might not choose to respect the blockade. We have that privilege. This does not provide a general argument for or against such tactics.

Maybe this belongs in the small questions thread, but how does Iran unilaterally restrict access to the strait without Oman's buy-in as well (at least without effectively performing an act of war against Oman)? Also is there anyone here familiar with international maritime law (and preferably not of the sovereign citizen, "how dare you stop me while I travel in my vessel, officer" types) who knows what rules exist (if any) about allowing access to the high seas from territorial waters that are otherwise "trapped" by another country's territorial waters, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia currently are?

I believe Oman has quite a few sympathies with Iran, and is likely also getting kickbacks. But yes it would involve dropping mines or threatening strikes to ships in Oman territorial waters.

Looks like Iran has claimed that the only place they've dropped mines--the "danger zone"--is Oman waters.

Iran has hit Oman at least a few times in this conflict, despite Oman not (currently) hosting any US forces. Oman was also one of the more neutral in it's public statements (IIRC they congratulated the new Ayatollah), although I don't know if that stance has changed in the last few weeks.

This is not a criticism of this post - I appreciate the time it took to write this up and it provides a useful springboard for less lengthy digressions (such as my own) - but I still think it is too soon to tell what the ultimate US strategy is or really what the final outcome is going to be here. I remember a week ago when users here seemed to be prognosticating the end of the conflict based on ten-point plans released on notoriously reliably news aggregation website Twitter X and of course the US did not in fact bite.

Iran might still agree to a deal. I think the economic pressure on them from the blockade may be underappreciated. But if they do not, the US could return to more punitive measures. The US appears to have used the ceasefire to rearm their carriers. I think it is a mistake at this point to assume the final plan of the States is to have a yearslong blockade. It seems plausible to me that the US resumes airstrikes if Iran refuses to return to the table.

So far, China has been the adult in the room, refraining from any special military operation adventures.

China has been incompetently funding a procy war and genocide in Myanmar. Nobody in the west really cares about it though.

My understanding is that the relationship between China and Myanmar is a bit complex. The Chinese government is somewhat supportive of the junta, invited the head to victory day military parade but refuse to call him leader of the country, etc etc. The junta in return helped catching A couple of gangsters and drug lords annd sent to China. And china sold weapons to the junta. But the northern separatists (kokang) are ethnic Chinese and was a splinter group of the indochina communist party, and had always received support from the Chinese. We’ve been funding both sides, a time honored tradition like how we sold weapons to GCC while buying sanctioned oil from Iran.

I’m not sure if nobody cared about “genocide” in Myanmar. Aung San suu kyi got her Nobel stripped. Some do care but they’re not in charge of their own country now.

I thought the "blunt melee weapons only" conflict with India a few years ago was at least notable. I'd call it funny, but there were more than a few deaths reported.

The Nine Dash Line isn't winning them friends in their neighborhood either.

ETA: Also their international fishing fleet often accused of stealing from other nations' waters.

In the context of your country pursuing a costly and unpopular war in the Middle East AGAIN, threatening to destroy a civilization, doing flip-flops, wrecking the world economy, and threatening your own allies, I don’t understand what all this hand-wringing about China “winning them no friends” is about. Go find a mirror or something.

Perhaps Iran and Israel nuke each other in the next decade, but at this point I can not really bring myself to care...

You should. A nuclear exchange would be a disaster for humanity. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Iranians would be a huge loss to the world. The loss of human capital and consciousness would be a tragedy, the suffering would be immeasurable.

Taiwan

Oddly, I think the Iran war probably precludes a Taiwan war in the near future because two things have become clear. Iran has demonstrated the USA's superiority in technological warfare to an absurd degree. The United States and friends were able to decapitate the Iranian leadership, they've been able to operate with impunity over Iran, they were able to land a small force and operate an airstrip inside Iran during a war. If the USA is even marginally interested in fighting China, it will be extremely costly for China, and especially for the Chinese leadership elite. But also, the Iran war has apparently hastened the decline of American influence abroad. Niall Ferguson brings up, over and over, that this could be the American Suez crisis. America's irresponsible behavior is causing rifts within the alliance system, the special relationships with the anglophone countries are gone, NATO could die. American may have sacrificed its alliances in Europe for its "alliance" with Israel. This increases the odds significantly that Taiwan peacefully unifies with China, with no American opposition, because China grows in power and prominence and Taiwan eventually sees the hand writing on the wall.

As for the blockade war, I can see the logic, but a lot depends on China and India. If China sends a naval escort for a Chinese flagged ship, what happens?

[You should care about foreigners dying or suffering.]

Do you know what website you're on?

The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Iranians would be a huge loss to the world. The loss of human capital and consciousness would be a tragedy, the suffering would be immeasurable.

This is not an opinion shared by what I believe to be, at this point, a majority of Americans. The younger cohort would not mind if Israel were glassed, the older cohort would not mind if Iran was glassed especially if America does not need their oil. Neither would support those actions, but they would not consider it a huge loss either.

The only drawback considered is the normalization of nuclear warfare.

It doesn't matter if it's an opinion shared by 99% of Americans, or 48% of Americans, or just me personally. It's morally correct and believing otherwise is wrong.

That's the problem. To the young, glassing Israel is the morally correct thing to do, the same way the right thinks glassing Iran would be the morally correct thing to do. It's incredibly easy to make people do horrific things as long as they feel good and right and morally correct, and I think you already know this, because you're old enough to have seen the madness of social justice.

Right or wrong doesn't matter in a democracy - it just means there are more of them. And fundamentally, when people can't be trusted with the power to decide who rules them, the entire edifice built on democracy implodes. It's happened a lot in countries other than the US; many places given the option to vote for their own leaders vote in autocratic dictators who immediately do autocratic dictator things.

Come the 2028 voting cycle, I expect to see a lot of handwringing over how much the opinions shared by enough of those who vote matter.

Oddly, I think the Iran war probably precludes a Taiwan war in the near future because two things have become clear. ... This increases the odds significantly that Taiwan peacefully unifies with China, with no American opposition, because China grows in power and prominence and Taiwan eventually sees the hand writing on the wall.

It could quite easily have the opposite takeaway. We've now seen that even a pariah state can exert a surprising amount of leverage against the superpower next door, even with only a fraction of the military power. And we've seen that said superpower can't reliably affect regime change simply by dropping a few bombs, boots on the ground are likely required.

It's been clear for a while now that reunification with mainland would be a massive boon for the Taiwanese economy, but I doubt the Taiwanese people would want it.

I thought boots on the ground was China's Plan A?

Peaceful reunification has always been plan A. The official line has always been “we pursue peaceful reunification with maximum effort but never rule out the use of force” or something along those lines. The Communist Party has always talked with the Taiwanese KMT (Kuomintang, lit. Nationalist Party, the party that was defeated by the Communists and retreated to Taiwan) since Chiang Junior’s era about peaceful reunification. Xi met with then-Taiwanese president and KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou in Singapore in 2015 and met again with KMT chairwoman Cheng Li-wun just a few days ago, which should be a step in the right direction. I think it’s one of the biggest happenings for cross-strait relations lately, but few seem to have heard of it in the West, partly because the other strait took their interest. Partly because Chinese positions on Taiwan was not imo rightly represented in western media, and the fact you think boots on the ground is plan A is pretty telling.

Also, PLA military advantage over Taiwan is a relatively recent development. Before the 2010s, the PLA navy and air force were weak, and their only edge against Taiwan was the PLA Rocket Force, which as you can see right now in Iran cannot force a complete defeat without boots on the ground.

I think it would be obviously stupid and tremendously tragic to do an Ukraine on Taiwan. I don’t want rockets destroying their (in my mind, our) civil infrastructure. I don’t want to destroy our cultural artifacts, and most importantly I don’t want to kill my own people, even if they don’t recognize themselves as my own people, which I think is something that could be changed without the use of force. They are 96% Han Chinese after all. There might be good reasons to have to do all of the above (the anti-secession law in China outlined a few things, including Taiwanese acquiring nukes) but it’s by no means plan A. I hope the KMT wins the next election (although I think it’s rather unlikely), and the temperature cools down a bit.

You should. A nuclear exchange would be a disaster for humanity. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Iranians would be a huge loss to the world. The loss of human capital and consciousness would be a tragedy, the suffering would be immeasurable.

You are correct, of course, my not caring is about their polities qua polities. My frustration is that there is little one could do to ensure better outcomes. Similar how life under the Taliban is obviously terrible for a lot of people, but there is preciously little the rest of the world can do to fix it. We do not have the will to permanently occupy Afghanistan, Israel and Iran permanently (or until they wisen up and become slightly less murderous in another century or so), and I don't require an EA impact analysis to notice that past occupations have been terrible on a QALY-increase per dollar spend metric (and a lot of other metrics beside that).

I would liken dealing with such countries to dealing with a chronically suicidal ex-partner. Of course you care if they suicide (or nuke each other), but you also don't want to spend the rest of your life doing crisis intervention. Bombing Iranian enrichment facilities, or having your ex committed to a psychiatric hospital for some time is a stop-gap measure which kicks the can down the road, but makes the problem worse in the long run.

Nobody has the stomach to occupy Iran or have someone long-term committed for suicidality. If someone wants to kill themself, or a regime is willing to pay the price of tens of millions of their civilians being murdered in reprisal for them murdering tens of millions of 'enemy' civilians in turn, that is hard to prevent.

Personally, I would have preferred to take my chances with a timeline in which Iran gets a nuke earlier but also does not have a history of Israel and the US bombing the shit out of them for a few decades to delay their nuclear program, and hope that both sides would be rational enough to play cold war like responsible adults.

As for the blockade war, I can see the logic, but a lot depends on China and India. If China sends a naval escort for a Chinese flagged ship, what happens?

With Trump in charge, your guess is as good as mine.

Generally speaking, I think that China is unlikely to start a war in a theater it can not win, and I do not see them winning a naval war in the ME against the US (though I am also not very well informed on relative naval capabilities).

Iran is blockading countries that participated in the attacks against them. Saudi, Bahrain, UAE can't claim that they aren't participants. They were a part of the war from day one and it is reasonable for them to pay for the damage they helped create.

As for the war I don't see it ending any time soon. The expectation is always that the next war is going to be short and end in a few weeks yet these wars generally drag on for years. Gaza is still ongoing 2.5 years later. Afghanistan dragged on for 20 years. Iraq was going 8 years after mission accomplished. Ukraine is on year 12 and 4 in terms all out war. Syrian civil war went for 14 years.

Trump has created a mess that isn't going to disappear and that will simply continue to deliver headache for years to come. George Bush at least started with popular support for his war. Trump has a war with 38% support in the first month. Trump has effectively shot himself in the foot and wrecked his second term.

As for China the pivot to Asia has become a pivot to the middle east and Ukraine. The US can't be the industrial base for Ukraine's military, fight a forever war in the middle east and compete with the world's largest industrial super power in terms of military might.

becoming one of the top four genociders of all time by ending Iranian civilization

Where in his tweet dies he call for mass murder with intent to eliminate Iranian as an ethnic group? He is clearly using "civilization" as a synonym for the Islamic Republic regime. A clear stretch of the term, but less of a stretch than calling a total regime change, a genocide, as you are, and many in the mass media are implying.

@quiet_NaN @coffee_enjoyer I'm gonna do a defense of @Poug argument.

The original tweet is very poorly worded. However, i think if we exam other aspects of trumps behavior aroundthe whole conflict, there is probably are good reasons to think that trump doesn't have any real desire to wipe out Iranians.

Here is trump telling Iranians to get really excited for a positive future. & wanting to continue talking to Iran to work something out afterward the initial "genocide threat"

Here is my take: I don't think trump unironically desires to genocide Iranians, even in the original tweet, he blesses the people. He is using hyperbolic language to try and get Iran to capitulate and work with him for some new deal. This is a poor strategy, but its also important to remember that there are plenty of crazy out there stuff trump has said in the past that never came to fruition. As far as I can see now, this has failed, and he is now blocking the strait. Not good, but not what i would call genocidal either. I think Iranians are gonna stay with us.

A blockade of Iranian ports, if taken to the extreme, will likely result in famines in Iran, which causes people to starve to death in large numbers.

They import a lot of their calories and don't have the road/road logistics capacity to replace their ports.

The bulk of the Iranian population lives away from the Gulf in roughly the northwestern third of the country. Their second-largest city, Mashhad, is next to the border with Turkmenistan. They definitely have enough logistics capacity to move stuff around.

I was repeating/summarizing a handful of comments I read on /r/credibledefense, which is usually quite pro-USA (mixed on this conflict)

We could rightly question their epistemic status, although in the same vein I'd question yours as well. I suspect everyone is talking out of their asses.

That being said, I genuinely hope that you are right. I have no sympathy for IRGC members being turned into pink mist, but I strongly dislike rampant punishment of civilians.

They have a northern coast along the caspian sea and several long land boarders. The sanctions will not be as solid as people expect. Russia is still flying Boeing jets four years into the war. Sanctions don't work in a globalized world along long boarders.

I was repeating/summarizing a handful of comments I read on /r/credibledefense, which is usually quite pro-USA (mixed on this conflict)

We could rightly question their epistemic status, although in the same vein I'd question yours as well. I suspect everyone is talking out of their asses.

That being said, I genuinely hope that you are right. I have no sympathy for IRGC members being turned into pink mist, but I strongly dislike rampant punishment of civilians.

It appears that food and other humanitarian cargoes will be inspected and then permitted to pass.

I have my doubts they can accomplish this while also stopping Chinese drone parts or whatever getting in.

But I hope this works! At this point whatever ends the war fastest while minimizing civilian harm (remember when we were freeing them from their fucked up government?) receives my full support

I don't think stopping Chinese drone parts from getting in (via sea) will be very hard, I don't think Chinese ships are likely to try running the blockade, although I could be wrong. China can provide stuff like MANPADS via aircraft easily enough if they really want to.

I suppose they could declare a destination in e.g. Bahrain and then attempt to swerve at the last minute, but then presumably they would be stuck in Iran indefinitely (I assume the US would interdict them if they successfully pulled this stunt and then tried to leave, although I might be wrong).

Keep in mind that sea control is an ideal task for aircraft and thus it's not very hard for the US to keep an eye on ~all ships transiting the strait, and they can do it without deploying, say, destroyers in the Persian Gulf. And I don't think it would be very difficult for ships with humanitarian aid to stop in Dubai or wherever for inspection and then finish the rest of the journey.

I want thinking more "DJIs in plastic wrap at the bottom of a bulk carrier otherwise carrying grain" but I'm not an international weapons smuggler so that's a vibes example not an exact scenario

Although blocking oil exports while continuing to freeze Iran's foreign assets will mean that food and essential humanitarian imports will cease reasonably quickly because Iranians can't pay for them.

This happened to Iraq between the two Gulf Wars - food and medicine imports were excluded from sanctions, but the exports to pay for them were not. There was an oil-for-food programme at one point, but it never worked because Saddam didn't care about disfavoured ethnic groups starving and accordingly didn't actually want food imports, he wanted to embarrass the countries imposing sanctions.

I agree that this might be a problem - and sincerely hope and pray that it is not.

However from a humanitarian perspective it seems to me the blockade is almost infinitely preferable to a concentrated power generation destruction campaign. When a blockade is lifted, it takes days or weeks for trade to resume; when power generation capacity is wholesale destroyed, it takes months or years to rebuild, and the economic damage from a blockade would be overshadowed by the economic damage from destroying Iran's power generation capacity.

(The US does have specialized munitions to temporarily degrade power supply but given that their effects are, I believe, relatively easily reversible I am not sure we would use them for "Bridge and Power Day.")

but it never worked because Saddam didn't care about disfavoured ethnic groups starving

This is the biggest asymmetry you can have vs the west. As long as your local faction has all the guns and you don't give a shit about the civilians, you can ensure your boys with guns are always fed, and any civilians who die along the way are a bonus because you/people in the west can point to them and scream "genocide"

Is it underhanded and fucked up? Yes. Is it an effective tool on the strategic layer? Unfortunately, also yes.

Sadly it works because local opposition parties in the west are incentivized to leverage the accusations for local gain rather than take the necessary stance to discourage the practice.

Words have meanings, and I'm not a fan of constantly excusing the use in official communications of words that mean something completely different.

I agree with this take (it's poor form from someone not winning as much as they planned), but I assumed it was (intended as) a mirror to the longstanding motte-and-bailey of what the "America" in "death to America" means. Sometimes Tehran's supporters claim it only means the current government. On the other, they say the same thing about Israel and seem to have no qualms launching cluster munitions at civilian population centers there. Or supporting proxies happy enough to target Americans.

The word “civilization” is never used to refer to just the political faction currently in power. If you google “Chinese civilization”, you will not find anyone using this term as a stand-in for Xi’s current regime. So this would be a brand new use of the term. The content of the tweet also goes against your interpretation as Trump claims there already has been total regime change:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?

So he can’t just be referring to the regime, as there has been “complete and total regime change”.

Thanks for digging up the actual tweet, I think it speaks for itself. Also, if he meant the Ayatollah regime with civilization, he would not express regret but glee at their removal.

@Poug: I am not claiming that he threatened to murder every last ethnic Iranian. (Doing that with Iran would surpass all historical genocides in scale, I think.) However, the crime of genocide does not require that you kill everyone.

The act of genocide is the intentional destruction of an ethnic group as a distinct culture -- which is damn close in concept space to 'destruction of a civilization'. Outright murder is a typical strategy, but not the only one. Mass sterilization or the forcible transfer of children to other ethnic groups are likewise ways to destroy a group.

However, context matters, and the context does not do Trump any favors here. The 'softer' variants like cultural genocide generally do not work overnight. Nobody could mistake Trump's threat as "we will occupy Iran, outlaw Shia Islam and the speaking of Farsi, force everyone to speak English and eat at McDonald's to destroy any distinction of the Iranian people and turn them into generic Americans" -- not that that would have been acceptable.

The only way Trump could possibly destroy the Iranian civilization overnight would have been to nuke their cities, killing most of their urban population and industrial base, so that the survivors would find themselves in a mixture of Fallout and rural Afghanistan, neither of which qualify as civilization. This would still dwarf the Shoa and the Holodomor in total deaths, even if the Nazis were more meticulous about murdering every last one of their victims.

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