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 -
Seems that Iran has closed the strait again, because the US blocked their ships.
To be honest, seems fair. A blockade is an act of war. A ceasefire where one side blocks economic activity while the other does not seems unbalanced. If Trump or Iran had merely blocked weapon systems from passing through the strait, that would be different.
No one ever said this before when anyone did this against ships flagged by or en route to neutral countries.
People are making up a bunch of new rules just to help Iran out.
I will grant you that this will give the ships of any country whose ships they deny a legitimate cause for war, just as the US blockading Iran gives any country whose ships they block an excuse to sink their carriers. In practice, third parties affected by either blockade will judge it in their interests not to start a war over it.
From a ceasefire perspective (which is what my quote was about), either blockade is an act of war, but the general narrative I heard was that Iran was willing to open Hormuz before Trump enacted his blockade.
The US has myriad option to impose their will on the world, from soft power to bunker-bursting bombs and invasions. Like the hedgehog, Iran only has one trick, but it is a very good trick. To expect Iran to bear the US blockade and not make the world share their pain by kicking the world economy in the balls would not be reasonable. This is not something specific to the Mullah regime, any country would do the same in Iran's place, international norms be damned.
This is, also, why in practice the JCPOA was folly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you declare 'might makes right' to be your governing principle, it becomes much harder to appeal to other principles (like international law).
The point is that "might makes right" apparently is defacto governing principle. Iran does not give a shit about international law by shooting at commercial ships and going against UN Security Council and other international bodies. The sad thing is that nobody is able to persuade them otherwise.
If there is one social law that actually objectively "exists", that it is adhered to by all organisms, then it is the law of the jungle, the vae victis, eat or be eaten. It is not exactly might makes "right", because law of the jungle does not care about righteousness. Might just uses force to impose your will or your programing onto reality, it is used by wolves when killing baby deers and it is utilized by chimpanzees or humans in wars. This is the default, everything else is only a structure on top of this underlying fact. It is important to remember that always.
I mean, it's not. There is a facile, trivial sense in which "might makes right" is true. If you can force people to do what you want then you can force people to do what you want. But in a far more important sense, it isn't true. No one rules alone, and the exercise of power requires both will and legitimacy. History has shown again and again that the weak can prevail against the strong by being willing to endure greater costs despite facial material inferiority, and that apparent strength can mask a lack of internal willpower.
A major failing of the midwit thugs that run the Trump administration is that they confuse power with entitlement. We see again and again from Trump himself as well as senior figures like Miller and Hegseth a belief that American power entitles them to do what they want - that others should give way to power because it is powerful. This is not the strong doing what they will, it is a moral appeal. It is not a conventional moral appeal, but it is a moral appeal nonetheless. The trouble for the Trump administration is that it is not a very compelling one. Mere force as a basis for legitimacy is not of interest to our longstanding allies (especially when that sentiment is turned on them, or when they are treated as vassals rather than allies). Hell, it is not of particular interest within the United States.
They compound this deficiency by trying to have it both ways. They sneer at international law and play the transactional bully when it serves them but also want to appeal to the institutions and allies they reject when it suits them. In fairness to the Trump administration, there's always been more than a whiff of "rules aren't for the people who make them" about the American-led order, but Trump et al don't even pay lip service to shared principles (and have been stunningly inept at diplomacy to boot). They cannot appeal to higher principles or laws because they themselves have rejected them.
I just want to point out, that international law you so fiercely defend is famously lacking legitimacy on all front ranging from democratic deficit, representation deficit with opaque power structures like UN security council or of course lack/arbitrariness/double standard of enforcement of international law. USA literally has Hague invasion Act since 2002, which preemptively enables US president to attack international court in Hague if they ever dare to apprehend US military personnel.
Yes, history shown that weak can make themselves strong and foment some sort of revolt, they can endure in silence sometimes for decades or even centuries like in North Korea or African tyrannies, weak can also whine and appeal to strong to make their plight more bearable. Sometimes the weak are lucky and strong are more benevolent and even indulge the weak in their power fantasies. In the end it all only affirms the law of the jungle.
So the critique is that they overestimated their strength and their inside and outside enemies are more powerful than them? Yes, this may very well be the case.
The higher principles themselves are only upheld by force. There is no international law in manypolar world, or in a world where the hegemon in form of USA will no longer uphold it. All the "allies" such as in EU or Canada can do is just whine and seethe. They can go and beg China or some other big dog to stand up for them, in the same way let's say Greek city states begged Rome to protect them from Macedonia or some such.
That is the very point I am making. Again, you may be raging that Trump is actually weak, that he endangers the very position of USA as the world hegemon ruling over land and sea by
international lawthreat of violence by nuclear carrier fleet. Without that kind of power you have world roamed by pirates, bandits, warlords or rogue states, where rebels and cartels rule the day. Of course, that is the law of the jungle.Maybe Trump took a bet an lost and made last of the Iraq > Afghanistan > Iran blunders which make US look weak. Similarly to how USA lost in Vietnam and it was not until the end of Cold War and winning the first Gulf War decisively where US empire reclaimed the title of ultimate planetary macho. So maybe it will take some other US president to show the world the true US power and discipline all the children around the world to adhere to international law or else. But again, it is all just power talk in the end.
Of course they can. International law is no set of "higher principles", it is bunch of shit made up by some bureaucrats. For instance I have more faith in principled stance of my local mayor to protect my rights than, some nonsense spewed by United Nations Human Rights council now led by some nobody from Indonesia. Plus I do not know why Trump or anybody else could not appeal to higher principles ranging from national or even Global Security or God down to things like "because this random council over there approved". It is exactly these principles behind the aforementioned Hague Invasion Act or many instances of ignoring international law.
I'm not defending it; I'm observing that invoking and rejecting it simultaneously doesn't work. If the Trump admin. wants to say "we can do what we want because we are powerful", they can't also appeal to international principles like freedom of navigation to demand other help them out.
Or rather, they can do that in the sense that you can say whatever you want, but it's not going to go anywhere (as we can see).
No. The critique is that they believe 'strength' obliges others to defer to them. This belief, in turn, is undergirded by a kind of brutish naivete about the nature of power. This leads them to make stupid decisions.
Any how do you gather the force to uphold the higher principles? Even the cruelest totalitarian relies upon their subjects accepting their rule. This is why I said that 'might makes right' (or however you care to formulate the idea that brute force trumps all) is a fatuous truism that obscures the substantive truth of the matter, which is that exercising power requires you to at the very least convince the people who do the actual exercising of your authority.
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
The Ferengi inside of me thinks Iran has a legitimate grievance, under the Rules of Acquisition they (and Oman) must be allowed to charge tolls on ships that pass through their territorial waters.
Repeat for every country worldwide and shipping is over
Most other countries can make deals with one another to the effect of: 'I won't if you won't'. But to establish such a deal you need mutual respect. Kind of hard to argue in favor of that wrt Iran when the current Iranian government was born out of a revolution against a puppet government that was installed precisely to allow certain foreign entities to not deal with Iran as equals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also fails to note that the blockade came about after Iran failed to open the strait as agreed as part of the ceasefire. It's conflict theory all the way down, and for many, siding with the IRGC is preferable to siding with Trump.
April 7-April 8: They agreed to a ceasefire, but the stated conditions were not fulfilled from the US end of the bargain. Israel and Lebanon were still at war. They did not "fail to open the strait as agreed" as the conditions they set were not met.
April 13th: US blockade takes effect, Israel/Lebanon still at war.
April 16th: Israel/Lebanon ceasefire.
April 18th: Iran makes some moves to open up but says
Iran of course had not agreed to conditions including a US blockade during the ceasefire talks. They did not "fail to open the strait as agreed" as the conditions they set have now not been met due to the US adding a blockade in and changing the situation.
People acknowledging reality are not "siding" with anyone but public truth. We can't see their closed door talks but we can see things like the Pakistan PM who negotiated the ceasefire who literally said
This isn't siding with the IRGC to acknowledge the publicly stated ceasefire terms were being violated by Israel up until the 16th. It's not siding with the IRGC to acknowledge the obvious truths that the ceasefire agreement did not include the US blockade that came after the talks.
The United States did not agree to an Israel/Lebanon ceasefire on April 7-8.
Then why did the Pakistan PM announce it as such? Maybe there was a misunderstanding and the conditions were not actually agreed upon, but the publicly stated conditions did include Israel/Lebanon.
Perhaps to stir up trouble. In any case, that Pakistan was the location of the talks does not let the Pakistan PM speak for either party.
That seems unlikely. In peace negotiations, you generally can't chose whom you are negotiating with. Iran can't say they would prefer not to talk with the US and talk with the UK instead, nor can Trump negotiate a ceasefire with Iraq instead.
But generally the host country is one which both sides can agree on. Iran can reject peace talks in Israel, and the US can reject peace talks in Lebanon. Pakistan was something both were willing to agree to, presumably because both thought that Islamabad would not fuck them over.
Generally, the host country has diplomatic influence on the line. If they fuck over either side, e.g. by misrepresenting the ceasefire terms, their diplomatic influence with one side will evaporate. With the Taliban trouble, Pakistan is unlikely to stab the US in the back. So in short, I would trust the host much more than I would trust either side.
Pakistan is the country that was making nice with the US for years while concealing Osama bin Laden and harboring the Taliban (same Taliban they're warring with now, ironically). Them causing trouble is pretty much par for the course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then why has the US not said anything about Pakistan, their continued host for negotiations, fucking with the ceasefire?
There's only three explanations I can come up with.
There was a misunderstanding of the conditions, and therefore there was no agreed upon ceasefire conditions to violate by either side.
The US side has lied, Israel/Lebanon was included and they realized they couldn't get Israel to stop in time/never planned to follow through on it anyway and just hoped Iran would open regardless.
Pakistan lied, despite no accusations from the US about this and continued usage of them as a host for negotiations, actively interfered in the agreed on ceasefire conditions and destroyed the deal.
Why are those the only three explanations you could come up with?
You insert two or three conditional cluses per explanation. You could increase your explanations merely by modifying those.
More options
Context Copy link
The US has denied that Israel/Lebanon was part of the ceasefire initially, and suggested it was a "misunderstanding".
From all appearances, this is academic, however; the people the US is negotiating with do not have the power to open the strait.
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
More options
Context Copy link
'Again' implies that they had stopped closing the strait to regional traffic.
Aside from some high-visibility propoganda passages, the open commercial data of, say, Iraqi trade does not show any such unblocking.
Why NaN, I wasn't expecting a defense of the Trump's blockade from you of all people. Normally I'd have expected a pithy 'but Trump said the strait was open!' to deny the Iranian role in blocking the economic activity they weren't letting pass.
The strait wasn't closed until Iran had multiple leaders assassinated. Now we could say that the original blockade by the US is fine, but maintaining the blockade during a ceasefire while Iran says they'll lift their closure puts the onus on the US again.
You're right here but totally ignoring the point which is that after the war started iranian announcements have claimed the strait to be open countless times and it never has been. Since iran's initial attacks on shipping, the strait has not been open for even a minute.
So Iran's announcement of "reclosing" the strait seems especially empty given it wasn't open in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link