site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   748 thread views

Transnational Thursday for May 7, 2026

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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

'The U.S. is effectively checkmated in Iran—and this defeat will carry lasting consequences unlike any America has endured before, Robert Kagan argues.'

It’s hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored. The calamitous losses suffered at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and throughout the Western Pacific in the first months of World War II were eventually reversed. The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world, because they were far from the main theaters of global competition. The initial failure in Iraq was mitigated by a shift in strategy that ultimately left Iraq relatively stable and unthreatening to its neighbors and kept the United States dominant in the region.

Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character. It can neither be repaired nor ignored. There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done. The Strait of Hormuz will not be “open,” as it once was. With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world. The roles of China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished. Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. That is going to set off a chain reaction around the world as friends and foes adjust to America’s failure.

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:

That is literally just a quote from 2016+ anti Trumper

It’s going to take longer. So what? The blockade will work but will take a little longer than desired.

Having established air and sea supremacy and sitting days away from utterly ruining the Iranian economy, accomplishing all of this in the span of a month, the US has... lost?

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.

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?

I think this war is a terrible mistake, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the thesis you're putting forward, but I consider myself unqualified to tell how well it's going, and with that in mind I'd go with: yes. All these neocons suddenly turning into doves strikes me as a particularly bad case of sour grapes, they're salty because they're not the ones who get to do it.

Would he "flush his whole ideology"? I don't see why not, a few years later they can flush what he's saying now - see also, as you pointed out yourself, his description of the Iraq war.

But isn't it straightforward to consider the goals and whether they've been achieved or look like they're going to be achieved sometime soon? Has the US made gains and if so, where are they?

Was territory secured? No. Has a friendly government been installed? No. Have resources been secured? No, quite the opposite, resources have been threatened as fuel prices rise... Is there a plan to achieve victory? Probably not, Trump has been pursuing all kinds of ideas in quick succession - threats to bomb energy infrastructure, a blockade, some kind of diplomatic solution, escorts for the strait of Hormuz. It doesn't seem like there's any well-considered plan for victory.

Meanwhile Iran already seems to be picking the fruits of victory, announcing tolls for oil tankers, declaring sovereignty over cables in the straits of Hormuz. They seem to have secured some territory.

The closest thing to a success is the notion that Iran's missile and drone capabilities have been degraded. But they still seem to be capable of bombing the UAE, pipelines, oil tankers. The Iranians could also claim 'oh well we've degraded US air defences in the Gulf and burned through much of the US munition stockpile', that seems a draw at best for the US, considering both gains and losses.

On the other hand, I guess you might be right about Kagan and it's just shameless pandering to Democrat sensibilities so that he can try Real Regime Change in a few years. Maybe defeat-maxxing is the start of a revenge mythology, like how the Italians seethed about losing in Ethiopia and went back in under Mussolini?

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