Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 34
- 1
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
'The U.S. is effectively checkmated in Iran—and this defeat will carry lasting consequences unlike any America has endured before, Robert Kagan argues.'
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/05/iran-war-trump-losing/687094/
If they've lost Kagan, who's left? Mark Levin and Laura Loomer? Personalities not known for strategic insight, to say the least.
I want to highlight how odd this is. With the Iraq war, the neocons were really slow to admit how badly they erred. At least they could point to the destruction of Baathism, tanks rolling through Baghdad. Even here he refers to Iraq as an 'initial failure' that was somehow redeemed later in the Surge. Nothing was lost that some artful rewriting of history can't obscure. That's nothing compared to the catastrophe in Iran, this blunder can't be swept under the carpet.
And yet the general public doesn't seem to see this at all, the comments on twitter are all like:
Starting wars in the Middle East and attacking Iran is Kagan's big thing! Imagine how bad the strategic situation has to be for people like Bolton (he wrote a similar essay earlier) or Kagan to admit defeat, even their bloodlust has been quelled by how badly this has gone. Kagan cofounded the project for a new American century, which had Iran on the target list from day 1, then the FDI which was the same thing with a new name. Kagan called for regime change in Iran in 2009 in the Washington Post, he hated the JCPOA and sought military action. Trump has done everything he said and yet Kagan and Bolton don't go for tactful silence, don't reimagine and bullshit and prevaricate like they did Iraq, Kagan says here that the policies he's called for over decades are a big fat irredeemable failure. Do we think he's really so wrecked by 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' that he'd flush his whole ideology down the toilet and humiliate himself just to stick it to Trump?
Imagine doing Stalinism so rigidly and incompetently that Stalin writes an op-ed in Pravda saying you've gone too far and starts blackpilling, how bad would things need to be? Pretty damn bad. The war is lost. Blowing up power plants in Iran isn't going to achieve anything other than raising energy prices as the Iranians wreck the Gulf. 'Sea supremacy' is a joke if the critical waters in question cannot be secured and are in fact controlled by the enemy.
It's a massive own goal by the US. Possibly era defining.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link