site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 15, 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.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Deal reached to end Iran war

Details of the deal are not publicly available right now. However, Trump has authorised an end to the US naval blockade, and Iran has agreed to reopen the Strait.

Not surprisingly though, Israel continues to bomb Lebanon and refuses to cede lands seized in southern Lebanon.

But MORE surprisingly, Trump actually reprimanded Bibi.

Trump has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop hitting Lebanon hard while a deal is near, but the prime minister has defied him. Trump told Fox News he had asked Netanyahu what he was doing, using an expletive. "What the f*** are you doing?" Trump says he told Netanyahu. Trump described the attack on northern Israel as "very small and meaningless, nobody was hurt, injured, or killed, and should not disrupt this important process".

Iran wants a ceasefire deal to include the fighting in Lebanon. It’s unclear whether that would mean Israeli forces' withdrawal and when. Most of Hezbollah's attacks in recent weeks have targeted Israeli troops inside Lebanon.

"A strong response is coming," said Ebrahim Azizi, who heads the Iranian parliament’s national security commission and is close to top leaders.

And Iran’s parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, a lead negotiator for Tehran, warned the US on X after Israel's strikes that "if you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible".

The deal does not solve the thorniest issues between the US and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear program or its billions of dollars in frozen funds, but offers a 60-day framework for technical discussions on those issues, according to Pakistani and regional officials familiar with the ongoing negotiations. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Under the deal being discussed, US and Israel appear to have fallen short of their original goals of destroying Iran’s missile and nuclear programs and ending its support for armed proxies in the region. It is not clear how the deal will address these issues, or if they will be part of the final agreement.

Critics in Trump’s Republican Party, struggling with an unpopular war ahead of the midterm elections, have criticised the emerging deal. Some said it did not improve on the terms of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump withdrew the US from during his first term and which he still describes as "bad".

So it seems we were lucky to return to the pre-war status quo, even Trump had to tepidly admit that he bit off more than he can chew and Iran's regional dominance is not going anywhere.

So it seems we were lucky to return to the pre-war status quo, even Trump had to tepidly admit that he bit off more than he can chew and Iran's regional dominance is not going anywhere.

Not that this was anyone's plan but we learned/reconfirned some things.

  1. Alternate oil routes: solid idea.
  2. Anti-mining tech: in
  3. Anti-drone tech: in
  4. If you're going to decapitation strike a regime do it before they brutally suppress a popular uprising
  5. The Gulf states seem pretty useless
  6. Europe seems pretty useless
  7. Starlink: seems easily jammed
  8. Can we develop alternate energy faster already
  9. Blockading Iran's blockade: seems like reasonably good counter-leverage

Iran learned some things too

  1. SOH blockade: surprisingly good leverage, invest heavily in that tech
  2. Houthi relationship: develop at all costs, must be able to shut down red sea route
  3. Moar ballistic missiles
  4. Moar drones
  5. Hamas attack on Israel: pretty costly!
  6. Nuclear program: yes
  7. Internet blackouts: very effective
  8. China: probably a great economic ally on a lot of gear
  9. Russia: useless

All in, I think life for Iranians gets steadily worse from here but at least they can say they're scoring points for the Islamic revolution.

Iran can blockade the strait to cause pain but it's not limitless. We can blockade them back and inflict pain too. Eventually both sides lose the will to keep going, but it might be an inconvenience to Trump whereas it's a lot more punishing for Iran.

Anyway, maybe we can try a decapitation strike again in a few years and see if we do any better at

I think Russia was helping supply a lot of the intel that helped Iran hit US and Gulf military assets.

'Helped' is a bit of a catch-all. Most US and Gulf military assets hit were on bases that have been in the region for decades.

Right, but the intel is whether there's anything left on the base worth targeting, and precisely where it is.

Most things worth targeting that were reportedly hit, as in that the Iranians made pubic boasts about, were more or less static targets. There are only so many ammo depots, supply sheds, airfield buildings, and so on. And given that the American decision to go to war was reportedly done a couple of months before the war, most things were going to be where not only where they had been a few months prior, but years or decades prior. Iran has presumably been working it's intelligence assets for as long, as opposed to starting from scratch.

There is also a point that one of the major changes of the last 25 years in the world is the rise of high-fidelity commercial satellite imagery. It's not exactly a great power capacity today, and while I doubt anyone will know relative amounts, there was at least media coverage of allegations of Chinese commercial imagery going to Iran.

One higher-profile Iranian success was that doesn't seem to have necessarily been supported by Russian intel, for example, was the US AWACs destroyed on the ground by a combined UAV and missile attack. That was a very expensive aircraft and is legitimately a strategic win... but using UAVs is a poor weapon choice for catching one on the ground given the time-distance delays. Holding back on firing the ballistic missiles to attack the target until the UAVs arrive is a good indicator that the Iranians didn't know the target was on the ground, because that would have been the exact sort of target to justify ballistic missiles alone for speed's sake.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying nothing relevant came from Russia. It's just that you may have a stronger opinion of the amount / value / impact than has so far been may be warranted, as opposed to Russian intelligence support serving a supporting / confirming sort of what the Iranians already had. This wouldn't even be an unreasonable conclusion to take from publicly available information. There are a lot of interests to a lot of players to play up the impact of Russian assistance- and not just for the Russians or even Iranians- as part of the information environment conflict.