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 -
BBC Reporting
Breaking As Donald Trump has been speaking, senior US officials have been briefing reporters about the deal with Iran.
The BBC was part of that meeting. Here are some key points from the 14-paragraph agreement:
Fighting ends - Lebanon included: The deal declares the "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon"
Final deal in 60 days: "The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent"
US naval blockade ends: The US will remove its naval blockade of Iran within 30 days. "During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran". Also, the US "further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal"
Strait of Hormuz reopens: The key waterway will remain toll-free for 60 days, and then, a senior official says, "Iran will work not just with Oman but with the Gulf states to set up a broader agreement, a longer term agreement on the Strait of Hormuz"
$300bn for Iran development: The US undertakes with regional partners to develop a fund of at least $300bn (£224bn) "for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran"
All sanctions lifted: The US "undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran", with a schedule to be agreed
No nuclear weapon for Iran: The US and Iran agree that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and they will work together on removing Iran's enriched nuclear material through "blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA"
[End Quote]
I should note for anyone that wants to dispute this, I first saw the breaking report on CNBC who said only that the version they were read basically resembled the previous "leaked" reporting except that there was a specification that the enriched material would be disposed of, at minimum by dilution under supervision within Iran.
So, this seems to be it, unless there's secret clauses more favorable to the USA or you think the State Department lied to reporters.
The original American goals for the war were, as I recall and I don't mean to call anyone out so I'm not hunting for citations to arguments from months ago, correct me if I'm missing any:
-- Regime Change: Nowhere close. Very, very conditional surrender. Probably further away than ever, though I think sanctions relief probably weakens the regime rather than strengthens it.
-- Forcing Iran to Abandon Proxies: Actually significantly worse off than before the war, as the agreement essentially requires and legitimizes the idea that Hezbollah is an area of interest and control for Iran. Iran is allowed to ask for this unrelated conflict to stop, and they're expected to control Hezbollah to prevent recurrence.
-- Destroy Iran's Nuclear Program: It does seem that the HEU will be neutralized, so chalk up a win here, but it's unclear how the overall nuclear program will be impacted. Iran does not seem to be giving up its right to enrich uranium. The vow to not build a nuclear weapon isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, and at any rate they had already made the same statement publicly on multiple occasions.
In addition to whatever the overall costs of the war are, fiscal and moral, Iran is coming out of this getting:
-- Complete sanctions relief. Iran is already getting waivers to sell oil through the blockade immediately, and will receive complete sanctions relief. I expected most of this, more or less, when the first peace proposals were released by each side and you could see the middle ground forming. But complete sanctions relief? That's unbelievable. I think it's a good thing for America to do sanctions never succeed in regime change in third world countries they only have any impact inasmuch as the people targeted think of themselves as first worlders. Maybe this won't happen, the USA is framing it as pay-for-performance on Iran's obligations, but it's crazy this is even on the table.
-- $300bn in reconstruction financing. The fund will likely be structured in such a way that Trump can claim no US taxpayer dollars went into it, or consist of loans such that it's not "giving" Iran $300bn dollars, or be restricted in how it's spent so that it can be framed as humanitarian aid, but let's be honest amongst ourselves: Iran is getting $300bn in reparations out of this. We're paying Iran to stop the war, or at best we are pressuring the Gulf States to do so.
-- Protection for Hezbollah and a recognition of Iran's role as their patron internationally.
The Strait talk is still in the air, some reporting makes it seem like the strait will be toll-free for 60 days, indicating it may not be toll-free afterward. Other sources indicate that it must be toll-free forever. We'll have to see. Personally I suspect there will be a small "environmental impact fee" assessed on every oil tanker passing through the strait, and both sides will claim victory.
So, like, by the terms set at the start, it doesn't seem that the United States achieved most of its objectives. Maybe the nuclear issue will be achieved in some way, but the program itself has not been dismantled unless, as JD has said on The View, you like the new Iranians better than the old Iranians.
For what it's worth, I think it's good policy today to sign the deal. I even think the overall terms of the deal can be a net victory for the United States.
When you're in a hole, stop digging. There was almost no chance of achieving any of those objectives through the course of the war by continuing the bombings. Trump is now saying, publicly, that within a few weeks the oil reserves were going to run out and everything was going to go haywire economically.
And removal of sanctions is a Good Thing full stop. Sanctions do not work to change regimes, they work to punish populations. We can ruin some French Judge's life for ruling against Israel, but we can't force Putin to leave Ukraine and we can't remove the Ayatollahs. Make Iran rich, tie it into the global economy, and they have something to lose in a future conflict.
What do we think are the odds that Iran tries to get weak inspections and then rushes for nukes sometime soon? Israel/USA have set the precedent that it will mass assassinate Iranian leadership and level the military/Industrial base and Iranian air defenses are pretty useless. The only effective Iranian deterrent is controlling the SoH, but everyone in the Gulf is going to be building pipelines and America is going to invest massively in technologies to neutralize cheap drones. Who knows how effective that deterrent will be in five or ten years time?
If you're a top ranking member of the Iranian leadership your enemies have made it pretty clear that your life is dependent on having an effective enough deterrent to keep Israel from "mowing the grass" again soon. Do you bet everything on drone technology continuing to enable asymmetric warfare or do you attempt a nuclear breakout at some point in the next decade?
It's an interesting question: what should Ayatollah Motteizan do?
Some things are obvious: lean more into the most successful military strategies, reevaluate the ineffective ones.
I'd personally just go full globohomo: money under the American aegis is nice. Get a luxurious villa on the Caspian, drink nice Shiraz every evening watching the sunset. But clearly they have deeper/different values from that, so that's a nonstarter.
Five years from now, the strait shutdown strategy will be weakened; regional competitors and global consumers will be developing alternative routes, and you can't rely on them as much to pressure Israel and the US to chill out. It would be nice to have something beyond that threat.
Maybe I'd want to pull in China: give them whatever ports they want, to create some kind of security guarantee. But if I'm China, it seems like an undesired entanglement; I want to be less, not more, invested in Middle Eastern oil politics. Probably not a viable option.
What about nukes? Definitely would be very nice to have a couple dozen. But it's not like Iran was holding back before in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it's not even clear that they could effectively deliver them to Tel Aviv if they had them. I just don't see a real path to go from where Iran is and has been to the point where they have a nuclear deterrent.
What probably would be best, given Ayatollah values, would be to take the opportunity to shore up the economy and regime support. Avoid shaking up regional politics, while domestically ruling as you want.
If it were me I’d have been more hawkish than Khamenei was but the forestalling of any nuclear weapons pursuit is expedient due to the likelihood of kicking off nuclear proliferation of the region which would worsen things overall for all parties in the near geographic vicinity. Their heavy asymmetrical investment in drone warfare is proving to be very resourceful and efficient.
Why do the Iranian top leaders care about regional nuclear proliferation? They are going to be killed by conventional bombs in the opening strikes whenever the next war happens, their only interest is developing an effective enough deterrent to prevent that war from happening.
More options
Context Copy link
Their drone warfare has the same limitations as other air warfare -- you can't make lasting gains with it. Their best use of that was to close Hormuz, and it wasn't sufficient (and does almost nothing to Israel). It will be even less useful in the future as the Gulf countries build more pipelines to avoid the bottleneck. If they want to achieve aggressive goals (e.g. destroying Israel), they need either a nuke or more than air power. They could take Iraq if the US looked the other way (one might argue they already have Iraq), but I don't see them getting sufficient force across Syria and/or Jordan.
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