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 -
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.
I think this whole analysis is built on false assumptions frankly.
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:
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.
This is just fantasy by the way.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
President Trump is going to destroy Iranian civilization? Sounds serious sounds like Iran should surrender.
It is simultaneously the case that:
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
I think most people are just trying to manipulate other people with mouth noises rather than transport meaning.
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.
No. He would have done something, but not anything like that; no advantage in it for him.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link