site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24254 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Iran war picks up again

The US said it launched a fresh wave of strikes on over 100 targets in Iran after Tehran struck a ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz, one month after the MOU to end the conflict.

Iran said it closed the waterway until further notice and warned of a severe response to US aggression. And within hours of the US strikes, Iran said they had hit a US base in Jordan, while the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain intercepted missiles and drones from Iran.

And Israel keeps striking southern Lebanon, despite the MOU.

Setting aside the many rounds of grifts talks, there's something to be said about great power adjacent warfare in 2026. Like Afghanistan and Ukraine, Iran is looking like this distinctive category of forever conflicts. Protracted, managed stalemates where neither side is willing to commit the resources and manpower towards a decisive victory, yet neither is prepared to accept political humiliation by surrendering. In Ukraine, Russia lacks the conventional strength for total conquest, while the West supplies enough aid to prevent collapse but not enough for a full on Ukrainian breakthrough.

I actually bought the last round of 'talks'. Now I'm blackpilled, we might be lucky if we get out of this in less than 20 years.

The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran. We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it is only stopping Iran’s ships or customers from entering or leaving. All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait. The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World. The process and formation will begin immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

So...yeah.

I don't even know what to say at this point. Are we just doing memes? Are we trying to make a deal work by making the mullah's demand for $1mm/ship look reasonable by comparison?

I doubt the goal is to actually collect that revenue, but these two objectives:

  1. Shame the countries (European, mostly) that refused to join into committing some ships,
  2. Dispell the idea that Iran is controlling the Strait since they demand tolls or collaboration; if the US is able to demand tolls instead then the US is demonstrating it is in control. Who this demonstration is for, Iran, American voters, etc... I'm not sure.

There's a lot of haranguing about who "won" and who "lost", as though there is some pigeonhole principle with those two possibilities. It's entirely possible that the US did not (or will not) accomplish its objectives (paying costs along the way) while Iran also was badly damaged. War is generally a negative-sum affair. That is not to say that some years from now, we will look back and think that such a case became reality; either side could still sufficiently "win". Just to say that it's also possible that neither party really "wins".

Very much agreed. I think people are brain-rotted by analogies that compare war to something like sports, where there's a clear winner and loser. It might be better to compare it to something like a riot, where there's a lot of chaos and no clear rules.

The second cliche I reach for when discussing war (the first obviously being Clausewitz) is the old saw: "Athens recovered quickly from its defeat in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta was destroyed by its victory."

The mou basically offered to pay of Iran to let the war just go away. It wasn't a total US surrender but still a pretty sweet deal for Iran. But it seems like Iran has soundly refused the offer. Now there's no choice but to fight.

There's no proof, but I believe that likely the US and gulf states have put together a reasonably sized blockade running fleet, with the understanding that some of the ships are going to get shot. But I also think nighttime transit within a convoy is mostly, but not completely, safe. The open daytime transits in the past few weeks were more of a show of force rather than a necessity to transport oil.

If true this would mean that Iran's leverage is greatly reduced, and the us will be free to engage in a war of attrition with Iran without too much worry. Even if so, I also think the US strategy has been quite incoherent.

The open daytime transits in the past few weeks were more of a show of force rather than a necessity to transport oil.

And also a chance to give Iran a chance to prove that it would adhere to a settlement by not shooting at them. Iran proved the opposite.

And Israel keeps striking southern Lebanon, despite the MOU.

And Hizbullah keeps striking Israel from Lebanese territory, and Lebanon keeps not stopping them.

The frustrating thing to me is that this is all so tied up in American electoral politics.

I'm firmly of the opinion that we should escalate the war in Iran until we win it. The cost in treasure and lives would be far less than in Afghanistan or Iraq and for a much more worthy cause, and many of the people I know in the military would absolutely love to get in there.

Unfortunately, there are midterms coming up! The US is largely incapable of pursuing long-term thinking (at least in the open), because any short-term sacrifice will be parlayed into an election loss for the party in power and the long-term plan will be discarded or reversed.

It seems to me that Trump actually wants to win this war. That's why the MOU and the negotiations have largely been a sham. They are not intended to work. They are intended to pacify people until the votes are in. Trump went for a cease-fire because it would lower gas prices, end of story, that's literally all most voters know or care about the war. And after the midterms pass, I expect him to use the overwhelming might of the US military to violently pursue his goals once again, and more power to him.

I don't have specific analysis to back this up, it's just how the overall picture looks to me.

The frustrating thing to me is that this is all so tied up in American electoral politics.

It's also tied up in narrow legalism. The Trump admin claimed they had legal authority to wage war for 60 days without talking to Congress about it. The ceasefire leading to the MOU came at 60 days. Now they're claiming that war was concluded and this is a brand new war. Expect a similar result if we make it another 60 days.

What's frustrating to me is the failure to think about the world that is reflected in so much of the analysis of the war.

Trump chose to start the war the way he did, with no warning and no lead up. This delivered certain advantages to the United States and Israel, allowing them to kill the former Ayatollah and replace him with his gay son, along with various other high level regime figures who were behaving normally and not under threat of assassination.

The cost of this was that there was no sale to the American people. No effort to convince the American people that the sacrifice was worth it. The assumption from the administration was that the US public was so used to being at war with some ragheads or other that people would just accept the war, like my wife getting a Poshmark package and assuming she must have bought something and forgotten about it. And for the most part they seem to be right, the American public will just accept that I guess we're in a war now and deal with the consequences. What they won't do is pay the bill.

Support for the war in public polling peaked at net -10 right at the start of the war, and currently sits at net -21. For comparison, approval of Iraq at this stage was flipped, with 56% in favor. What can we expect when the war was never justified publicly, when the aims have shifted constantly, when it's been over or won or subject to a ceasefire so many times already?

Foreign policy "Realism" is increasingly revealed as Idealism with the serial number sanded off, the realists idealize a world where "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must," and throw tantrums whenever real life gets in the way.

The cost in treasure and lives would be far less than in Afghanistan or Iraq

The Iranians aren't Iraqis and it's not 2003 anymore. The wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were the US hammering soft targets who were unprepared and ill-equipped. Iraq was open plains, suitable for mechanized offensives. The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't have any advanced weapons whatsoever. Iran has advanced weapons, mountains and marshes plus fairly competent soldiers.

Iran is well-prepared, their whole military strategy is designed to counter America. Plus Iran is just a whole lot bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan. Since Iran is 3x Iraq's population, US casualties should be at least 3x higher even if Iranians were at the same tier as Iraqis, which they aren't.

What is the US military supposed to do? More bombing? The last waves of bombing didn't really work, bombing doesn't really work in general as a war-winner, except as a way to weaken a target for a ground campaign. Only special circumstances make bombing effective.

A ground invasion would be a giant million-man extravaganza. That's the whole US Army, Marines and a good chunk of the national guard. How are they even supposed to get in enough supplies when all nearby US bases are being bombed? First Iran's missile and drone forces need to be suppressed which the US hasn't been able to do. If they couldn't do that during the last few months of bombing, why would they be able to do so now or after the mid-terms?

The US military couldn't do much substantial damage to the Houthis in Yemen a couple years back, they'll just bounce off Iran in the same way.

I don't disagree with much of this. But I think the US goals in Iran would be much more modest than the occupation and nation building we saw in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I'm sure there's a plan that's in development for e.g. seizing Kharg Island, and I think there's a good chance that Trump gives the go ahead some time in the next few months. There are also likely plans for direct action against specific sites related to nuclear enrichment and the like. We already had a test run for insertion/recovery into the country with the missions to retrieve those pilots, and they went as well as could be expected.

But there's also unconventional warfare, which takes much longer but may eventually bear fruit (assuming it's even happening, but I think that's a fair assumption). This may even be the main effort, with the bombings, economic sanctions, etc. serving to shape the environment. But we won't learn about all that until the declassified retrospectives are published in a few decades.

What is the US military supposed to do? More bombing?

Iran is, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, developed industrial country.

World #12 in electricity production

World #10 in steel production

World #6 in cement production

World #18 in motor vehicle production

etc, etc...

Serious war against Iran would entail dusting out WW2 playbook and go for full strategic campaign - blockade of the country plus destruction of industrial base. Unlike WW2 times, precision bombing means not "hit the tight quarter of the right city" but "hit the right pane of the right window of the right building" and industrial plants are not something that can be hidden.

But it will still mean multi year prolonged campaign, and it would mean 6-7 figure of Iranians dying, unlike in WW2 times streamed online, and this would not be seen by the world as spreading freedom, democracy and human rights.

Firstly, bombing Iranian industry aggressively means they'll destroy oil industry throughout the Middle East in retaliation, causing severe economic damage via oil shortages. Blockading Iran means they blockade back, they've been doing that the whole time. The whole point of this current phase of the war is to prevent that economic damage, to open the straits, not raze the Gulf oil production.

Secondly, an industrial state is an innately more dangerous opponent. Iran makes things, Iranians are makers. They can rebuild industry, move industry underground, make decoys and so on. At a certain point they'd decide to nuclearize, surely. Or launch strikes against the US heartland with Ukraine-style drone attacks from third countries/special forces against sensitive areas. The US has one factory producing ball powder for munitions and is building one (1) TNT factory, with zero operational. Iran can cause all kinds of problems.

Thirdly, the WW2 playbook means WW2 casualties. WW2 was not a bombing-only campaign, it required a ground campaign or at least the threat of a ground campaign to achieve victory in Europe and against Japan. The US could prevail if it were fully committed I think, if it threw all other concerns aside and focused everything on Iran. But America is not Putin's Russia. Iran doesn't really matter to US interests and the forces that can realistically be brought to bear are not going to get much done.

I don't think that Trump and the US have the necessary political strength to beat Iran, the gulf in will is too great. The strategy just doesn't work given the constraints of geography and capabilities.

So the best case scenario for the US hawks is a mass casualty and refugee event caused by crippling strikes on infrastructure.

The war goals achieved by this event are the dissolution of the current Iran regime which will potentially prevent Iran from making Nukes. Beyond that there are no guarantees without actual boots on the ground nor are there any relevant beneficial effects for anyone that is not deeply invested in the interest of the state of Israel and its hegemony in the middle East. All anyone gets is cost.

best case scenario

Definitely not what Eetan said. Best case might be something like: the costs of war for Iran lead to internal regime change that replaces the theocracy with technocratic moderates. Or something along those lines.

What Eetan described is probably closer to a below average but survivable outcome that would achieve some US goals at a moderately high cost.

So the revised best case scenario is that with very minimal 'cost of war' for Iran, the regime crumbles. I don't find that scenario very likely and I don't believe the hawks proposing boots on the ground believe so either. But one can always hope.

which will potentially prevent Iran from making Nukes.

Yeah, that's the only goal potentially making the war worth fighting. But it IS a rather big deal.

It's a big deal for a US foreign policy that's predicated on certain ideological priors that maintain that Iran is an existential threat. I don't find those priors very convincing.

With or without a nuke, Iran is not an existential threat to the United States. However, the fallout (more figurative than literal, but some literal) from the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv would be rather ugly, compared to the current war.

One could presume that Iran knows that as well. So the assumption they would sacrifice themselves to nuke Israel is, again, a very unfounded prior.

much more worthy cause

What exactly is this worthy cause? Consolidating control of the sandbox? Greater Israel? Something else?

Iran is in open warfare with the US and its allies, and has been for decades.

It's also run by a radical religious sect that honest-to-God believes a nuclear war is necessary to bring about the return of their messiah. Depending how credibly you take that belief, they are arguably an existential threat to humanity if they acquire nuclear weapons.

Edit: to be clear, I don't necessarily mean this is sufficient reason for the war, just that it's much more convincing to me then the reasons for Iraq and Afghanistan

believes a nuclear war is necessary to bring about the return of their messiah.

This is news to me, do you have more information? Is this something specific to Shiism?

It's a specific sect of Shiism called Twelver Shia. They believe that the twelfth Imam, Muhammed al-Mahdi, is miraculously still alive, and that he will return to bring in an eternity of peace and prosperity (and global Muslim rule of course). However, for this to happen certain signs must take place, including an apocalyptic war and the destruction of Israel.

Technically, quite a lot of Shia groups believe in the return of the Mahdi, but Iranian Twelvers in the IRGC are particularly radical, and believe they are required to proactively pave the way for his return.

Why does it require a nuclear war in particular as opposed to a conventional one?

From what I understand, it doesn't require nuclear war, but nuclear war would be the most straight-forward way to achieve their ends (both apocalyptic war and the destruction of Israel). It's not that Iranian leadership definitely wants to launch nuclear Armageddon, but that there are some within the IRGC who would conceivably launch a nuclear weapon at Israel or western countries if they had the capability. Their theology means that normal incentives (mutually assured destruction and the like) do not constrain them - they have a similar mindset to a suicide bomber, ignoring worldly consequences in favor of presumed eternal rewards.

Here's a paper from 2022 from the Middle East Institute that goes into some depth.

While there is hope that the IRGC’s senior leadership will act pragmatically, internal structures within the Guard — including its indoctrination and promotion system — certainly open up the possibility that devoted Mahdists could occupy senior leadership positions. Such a scenario could have far-reaching consequences as it would bring the three pillars of the IRGC’s foreign policy — militias, ballistic missiles, and the nuclear program — under their control. Even if a small number of devout Mahdists occupy senior positions in the Guard, it is possible that they may seek to facilitate and speed up the return of Mahdi.

If you look at Iran's actions through this lens, they make sense. In particular, the Iranian insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

What exactly is this worthy cause? Consolidating control of the sandbox? Greater Israel? Something else?

Yes, at least according to large part of USG decision makers, the Holy Land is what is it all about. Something hard to really grok for aspiring rationalist types, but this is really the best explanation for this mess.

If it was really all about oil, you would not see even one tenth of part of IRL Middle Eastern drama - US would just do business with anyone willing to pump and sell the black goo. See, for example, Africa - Nigeria, Angola, Congo etc are as riven with intractable conflicts, but The Free World(TM) is not tempted to intervene.

See recently deceased Lindsey Graham as typical example

There is no one to say Kaddish for Lindsey Graham. He had no wife. He had no children. He dedicated his entire life, mostly for us. We are his children.

Lindsey loved the Jews more than the Jews loved themselves. He traveled the world, from country to country, and fought like a lion for the State of Israel. He wasn't even Jewish himself. He simply believed with all his heart, with all his might, that it was the right thing to do.

Absurd and theologically confused of course, but I’m curious what /u/FlailingAce meant.

Despite Iran’s pronouncements that the straits are closed, many ships are continuing to cross them. We know that during the last closure the US military escorted many ships through (while maintaining a blockade on Iran itself). Iran it turns out doesn’t have the capability to actually close the straits, just to threaten to do so. Increasingly hollow threats as sanctions, the blockade, war inflation, and US strikes erode their ability to project even a little force.

Now even according to the New York Times, Iranian officials are divided because the Supreme Leader remains absent. Iran is apparently deeply divided on whether to continue the war or not — far from the situation predicted by war critics that Trump’s strikes would simply ensure Iran was united around fighting America until the bitter end.

this distinctive category of forever conflicts

This isn’t forever war, this is just war. The Iran War has only for a few months, most of that under ceasefire — this is totally historically normal. The Ukrainian War has stalled out but 4 years is also not an exceptional length by the standards of war. The major forever wars of recent years were America’s misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were totally different models. Trump doesn’t have NGOs on the ground teaching Iranian clerics to embrace hashtag Black Girl Magic.

Now I'm blackpilled, we might be lucky if we get out of this in less than 20 years.

Iran won’t last that long. Inflation and sanctions are already crippling their economy and their ability to stay fed.

So.. the Straits of Hormuz are actually open and Iran is just talking shit? There is no threat to shipping, nobody is paying tolls, insurance rates are not being jacked up, oil prices are not being affected, a US military presence is not necessary because the Iranian military no longer exists, and this is all fake news, we can go home and declare victory and ignore anything Iran says about shipping?

That is fantastic news!

I think it's a bit of both. Going by the data here: https://portwatch.imf.org/pages/cb5856222a5b4105adc6ee7e880a1730 the number of cargo ships crossing the straits are still far below pre war, but also significantly above the zero where it was at the start of the war. Iran can still significantly threaten traffic, but they can't shut it down entirely like they claim. The US also has the power to escort individual ships though, but it comes at a great cost. For what it's worth, oil futures are now back down to roughly what they were before the war.

You're going to have to look closer at your source next time. It's data only goes up to the fifth of july.

I did see that. It's just that, for obvious reasons, there aren't any sources with up-to-the-minute data on an active war zone. You''ll have to be patient for the data to arrive.

If you did see it then I don't understand why you presented data from a week ago, when iran wasn't shooting at tankers, as if it were representative of now, when iran is shooting at tankers.

Even if they weren't actively shooting a week ago, there was no permanent peace treaty and the risk was still very real. https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/ says there's also some shipping in the last 24 hours. No idea how accurate that is though.

I feel like you're trying to worm your way out of the fact you presented week old data as if it were representative of now.

More comments

The straits are open, but at higher risk than they were before the war. Iran can hit ships, and occasionally does. I don't think anyone's paying tolls except those using the Iran route to pick up Iranian oil, and I'm not sure about them. Not sure about insurance; most of the non-Iran traffic seems to be Gulf-owned ships which are presumably locally insured, though the Greeks still seem to be in there too.

Frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

during the last closure the US military escorted many ships

The problem is that we don’t really know if this is true or not. The Admin has an interest in pretending that this is occurring, both to buffer the economy and sow confusion in Iran.

Iran is apparently deeply divided

We also don’t know if this is part of Iran’s negotiation tactic, allowing them to renege on previous promises while blaming it on a rogue faction, like how America can blame things on Israel while also having the ability to stop them at threat of force.

NGOs on the ground teaching Iranian clerics to embrace hashtag Black Girl Magic

This is not typically the criticism of our previous excursions, but that they cost trillions of dollars and led to many casualties and caused other problems down the road. All the black girl magic in the world likely did not exceed $100mil.

The problem is that we don’t really know if this is true or not. The Admin has an interest in pretending that this is occurring, both to buffer the economy and sow confusion in Iran.

Yes we do. Independent trackers commercial AIS and satellite images show ships crossing the strait. It’s not as many as before the war and it’s not zero. These are not unfalsifiable claims, a lot of this stuff is verifiable and public.

Moreover, who would these lies be intended to confuse? The Iranians? If Iran cannot even tell when ships are crossing the straits, then they do not have control over the straits. So even if we accept your premise as true, it’s not looking good for Iranian power.

The ships we see going through are for Iran-allied countries, eg China. I don’t think the US military would be escorting ships carrying oil for China.

Is anyone keeping track anywhere? Is there a graph? Does it say anywhere which ships get through every day and who they work for? Did you check this yourself?

I dont know if the poster is checking, but it is absolutely the case that tanker movements are being obsessively tracked.

The US has a blockade on. Ships are not passing through without American power. Your alternative explanation that we have to disbelieve everything coming out of America and accept Iran’s explanations instead is totally unconvincing.

https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2059310640037269628?lang=en

It’s Iran and CENTCOM vs Trump admin. But Trump Admin is pretty much always lying. So why would you trust the Admin on this? Ships destined for China may be passing through without escort as part of an American-Chinese deal. Do you really think America would blockade things destined for China? How do you think China would reply to that?

CENTCOM five hours ago affirming that Iran does not control the strait:

https://x.com/centcom/status/2076278945993888116?s=46

Here is CENTCOM validating my earlier claim:

https://x.com/centcom/status/2075325424591044956?s=46

What you have posted is cherry-picked from a day when the US military was not actively safeguarding ships and used that as proof that they never did at all. (Which in fact that tweet in tacitly confirms as a real operation.)

The "earlier claim" tweet was written right after the MOU ended (june 17th to July 8th). Your OP assertion is "we know that during the last closure the US military escorted many ships through". The "since early May" in the CENTCOM tweet may be doing a lot of work here: do they mean that, technically speaking, between early May and until June 8th there were escorted ships, all of which occurred during the MOU phase? If they mean, as the phrase suggests (versus what it technically includes), that there were ships passing through in early May, this would go against CENTCOM’s May 26 post:

🚫CLAIM: Recent media reporting claims that the U.S. Navy has restarted escorting or assisting commercial vessels during transits through the Strait of Hormuz. FALSE.

✅TRUTH: Project Freedom has not resumed, and U.S. forces are not currently escorting commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

I mean, at least one of their posts must be misleading. They are correcting the claim that America is escorting ships (on May 26) with “project freedom has not resumed”. But project freedom stopped on May 5th. So this tweet suggests that from the 5th to at least the 26th, there were no escorted ships.

More comments

Moreover, who would these lies be intended to confuse?

Oil futures algo bots, of course.

I'm gonna go ahead and maintain my stance against a hundred million dollars spent on black girl magic.

This is an incredible shitshow and, yes, seemingly the standard for modern wars. I've said before that the MOU is a sign of the US accepting the failure of Epic Fury and military defeat and cutting losses (contra my initial expectations; tbh that was impressive, if anything – Russia also miscalculated, but can't even cut losses). But well, nothing (except self-respect and reason, perhaps) could prevent the US from retroactively revoking this acceptance and just relaunching the war. Opening the Strait by force is going to be as hard as before, the oil supply crunch won't get any better, interceptors and standoff munitions didn't magically regenerate in the meantime, but it didn't become any easier for Iran either. Will the Regime finally Collapse under the pressure? Doubt. Will it accept less favorable terms of peace, now that American resolve is reaffirmed? More plausible but I think their payoff matrix is unchanged (they need to secure and fund post-war military deterrence in the presence of Israel, they can't trust the US or Israel), and that dominates their analysis. Will we see escalation, maybe even ground operation? Seems remote…

I suspect one big factor of why Trump feels like he can afford this (and why he doubted that enough to authorize the MOU before) is that the oil demand is proving to be sustainably low, and that's mostly due to China sharply dropping their oil imports and thus not competing for a volume to the tune of 5.5-6 millions of barrels per day, roughly 2 Japans' worth, vastly more than what they were getting from Iran and Venezuela combined. For all of Trump's gratitude, this is not charity from his "friend" Xi, of course. The best analysis of what's happening that I've seen is here, in short:

  • cost-sensitive private refineries
  • end of stockpiling
  • some private drawdowns

They may also be releasing their SPRs, but that's not clear, nor is the volume of this buffer; I've seen numbers from 1.2 to 2 billion barrels. Combined with domestic production of ≈4.3mbd and some 6.4mbd of remaining imports, they can presumably keep this up for years. Their strategic objective is removing oil import dependence anyway (much to the chargin of Malacca blockade enthusiasts). There may be backchannel verbal agreements too. So Trump can assume that there won't be a sudden spike to $150+ per barrel, gas pump voter outrage and other externalities of the closed Strait.

Another factor is that there's a planetary bull run driven by AI and upstream HPC hardware supply chain, where oil-importing Asians are all winning massively, the US is getting huge capital inflows, and that's papering over bad war news. American dominance in AI, demonstrated with Claude Fable release drama, is also being rapidly converted to diplomatic leverage over the squeezed NATO allies.

So if Trump's thinking is dominated by things like midterms, he might just figure it's better not to be a loser.

Still, energy inflation is really bad, already 15.8% year-on-year in OECD. The war will continue to function as a tax on global growth, worse for some (Europe) than others, for the foreseeable future.

They may also be releasing their SPRs, but that's not clear, nor is the volume of this buffer; I've seen numbers from 1.2 to 2 billion barrels. Combined with domestic production of ≈4.3mbd and some 6.4mbd of remaining imports, they can presumably keep this up for years. Their strategic objective is removing oil import dependence anyway (much to the chargin of Malacca blockade enthusiasts). There may be backchannel verbal agreements too. So Trump can assume that there won't be a sudden spike to $150+ per barrel, gas pump voter outrage and other externalities of the closed Strait.

Another factor is that there's a planetary bull run driven by AI and upstream HPC hardware supply chain, where oil-importing Asians are all winning massively, the US is getting huge capital inflows, and that's papering over bad war news. American dominance in AI, demonstrated with Claude Fable release drama, is also being rapidly converted to diplomatic leverage over the squeezed NATO allies.

Another factor is that Asian oil importers have been dumping Treasuries like crazy, pushing yields up on the long term bonds. Oil prices haven't spiked but yields on the 10 year and 30 year are already rapidly approaching multi-decade highs.

I've said before that the MOU is a sign of the US accepting the failure of Epic Fury and military defeat and cutting losses (contra my initial expectations; tbh that was impressive, if anything – Russia also miscalculated, but can't even cut losses). But well, nothing (except self-respect and reason, perhaps) could prevent the US from retroactively revoking this acceptance and just relaunching the war.

A few months ago war critics told me that America lost so badly it would accept whatever terms that the Iranians offered. Now that that hasn’t happened, they say that the US lost so badly it must have changed its mind about surrendering.

The rest of your post in fact makes a case I was arguing months ago: that the global supply chain was more resilient than critics supposed and that Iran’s leverage over the strait was not that great.

The much more plausible explanation, which I have not had to alter over the past few months, which looks better and better with age, is this: America decisively crippled Iran’s nuclear capabilities and Military Industrial Complex; Iran has been badly weakened, maybe fatally; Iran does not control the straits and cannot chase America out of the straits; America is in a dominant position. Iran will never toll the straits, they will never acquire nuclear weapons, their military strikes will become increasingly ineffective, their country will suffer from inflation and sanctions, they have no trump card to play, and the only question left is how badly they will surrender.

The US accepted an MOU that people swore amounted to total victory for Iran. Then [B]Iran[/B] through its actions demonstrated it didn't think the MOU was total victory. Iran still thinks it can get unconditional surrender -- the US goes away, Iran tolls the straits, Iranian proxies attack Israel and Israel just takes it, and Iran gets back to the job of building a nuke for Tel Aviv. The US does not appear to be interested in this deal, but neither is it interested in invading Iran. So we've got this dynamic stalemate. Iran can't keep the straits closed, but the US can't keep them 100% safe either. Every time Iran attacks shipped, they get bombed more.

Iran can still win, though. They can simply outlast Trump, and then President AOC or Al-Sayed gives them everything they want. This does assume Trump doesn't decide to do a decisive attack, or if he tries Congress and the courts stop them.

I think the US is going to "lose" this war, because ultimately Trump is better off losing than winning. The consequences of a US victory are either a US-led occupation of Iran, or a Houthis-on-the-Hormuz failed state under circumstances where it is obviously Trump's fault. Both of these are worse, in US domestic political terms, than declaring victory and going home (even if the declaration of victory is non-credible outside the MAGA filter bubble). If Trump's economic team were competent enough to impose export controls on US crude oil in a way which limited the impact on pump prices, then making Iran Iran's neighbours' problem is the obviously correct America First policy.

Iran, even with nukes and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, is a threat to America's no-longer-needed proxies in the Middle East, not to America.

A few months ago war critics told me that America lost so badly it would accept whatever terms that the Iranians offered.

My position was that America lost badly enough in the first round that they wouldn’t be able to afford to leave it at that. I had been expecting this resumption for some time.

Your prediction was the set of every possible outcome? Congratulations on your predictive powers

How is that every possible outcome? That’s one outcome!

A few months ago war critics told me that America lost so badly it would accept whatever terms that the Iranians offered. Now that that hasn’t happened, they say that the US lost so badly it must have changed its mind about surrendering.

That's exactly what had happened, though. The US accepted and signed very unflattering terms. You don't get to change history by having a temper tantrum. All you attest to is that the US is even less trustworthy than was commonly believed, and Trump is basically not the kind of creature capable of representing a state with a consistent policy and commitments, but just a dude doing whatever. As I've said 2 weeks ago:

Operation Epic Fury had been declared Over in early May already, by the Secretary of State, who doesn't have remotely Trump's reputation. The US and Iran have signed - not announced, not "leaked" – an MOU which is clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective of the US, and a bunch of obvious Ws for Iran. Could Trump ignore it all, restart the war, and actually beat Iran this time? Quite possibly. Such things happen in history. But that'd be another, separate war. The terms accepted now suggest the US was pretty desperate for an off-ramp.

This seems as true as it was then.

that the global supply chain was more resilient than critics supposed

The point I'm making is that the global supply chain's resilience, which your war is dependent upon, is subsidized by the PRC, and the US had no reason to assume this goodwill at the start.

The much more plausible explanation, which I have not had to alter over the past few months

Ok? What was even the point of the MOU then, in your opinion?

That's exactly what had happened, though. The US accepted and signed very unflattering terms.

Did they sign unflattering terms or did they agree to things they would never have to act on because Iran, Israel, or the US would promptly renege?

America killed Iran’s leadership and bombed their factories, which means Iran won. Because they control the straits of Hormuz, which allows them to cripple global trade, although that hasn’t happened because of the Chinese, who support Iran. It’s all very simple. The Americans lost so humiliatingly that they signed an embarrassing surrender deal, which proves they lost, even though they aren’t following it right now, which also proves they lost. It’s all very simple. The important point is that Donald Trump is evil, but he lost because he’s stupid, but he’s also too evil to care, but he’s also too stupid to know he lost, but he also refuses to accept that he lost because he’s so evil. It’s a very simple explanation. If the US starts to appear as though it’s winning, it’s actually a separate second war that bears no relation to the first war. Who can really say. Iran might not have a navy or Air Force or nukes, their leaders were all killed and now the IRGC is divided about how to proceed, they can’t control the straits and they are under tremendous economic strain, but when you think about it they refuse to surrender and isn’t that the same as winning?

The US accepted and signed very unflattering terms.

At the time I pointed out that America wouldn’t pay Iran any money unless they cooperated, and now what’s happened? Does it feel like Iran is in control? Does it look like Iran is in control?

America killed Iran’s leadership and bombed their factories, which means Iran won

We've been over this. Yes, killing people and bombing shit does not constitute a strategic victory, although your culture might be too unrefined to grasp such a sophisticated post-Bronze Age notion. Read the community note here, for example.

You really try to sneer, but it's clear you're mad.

The important point is that Donald Trump is evil, but he lost because he’s stupid, but he’s also too evil to care, but he’s also too stupid to know he lost, but he also refuses to accept that he lost because he’s so evil. It’s a very simple explanation

That's not the only point, but it's a simple and true explanation, consistent with all of Donald Trump's actions over his entire career, from big to small, from wars to his pathetic whiny entitlement; and the reason you're mad is that you don't want to recognize what loyalty to this creature says about yourself. Trump provides you with vicarious fulfillment of fantasies about bullying and revenge, so you're invested in overlooking his missteps.

It's interesting, Shakes, that you regress to this reduced vocabulary and simplistic sentences, essentially triumphalist grunts, when you get excited and angry. Like here:

America is building an economy in space. We have rockets that catch themselves in the air and wifi where there are no cell towers. We revolutionized energy, we export energy now. We are leading the AI superrace. We still have the strongest navy and the strongest planes in the world. Europe is falling behind. China can't catch up. We are building a next-generation tech stack the entire world will rely on and nobody else is close to catching up. It's an American century.

It's… Trumpian. Strongest planes. Winning bigly. Killed their leaders. Have you noticed? Or is it affected?

“You mad, bro? You mad bro?” Too bad I was kind of looking forward to arguing again. Until next time!

  • -12

You're as bad as Dase about taking advantage of your many AAQCs to occasionally descend into juvenile neener-neenering like this. Don't do this or I will send you both to bed without your suppers.

“Bed without suppers”? You can’t follow your own rules while you enforce them, you want to insult me and then hide behind your jannie hat. Go fuck yourself. Nobody cares about your AAQCs or your bans, and I’ll happily eat one to tell you off. We don’t need to be tone-policed by someone who can’t even police himself, a rude and nasty person.

More comments

For the record, I was enjoying reading both your and @DaseindustriesLtd's takes!

I think of it as a fun ongoing debate tbh

You flinch away from self-reflection, which is in character, of course.

Guy who can’t face the inconsistency of his predictions telling me to self-reflect

More comments

I still predict boots on the ground eventually. Trump does not have the temperament or neural plasticity to change course.

I doubt it. He values American lives. Causing collapse of Iran is more plausible. Depopulated country has no resources to pursue nuclear program.

I think there’s a small chance he uses nuclear weapons.

No need to use nuclear weapons. Just need to change tactics. He has access to some of the best twisted mentats of the CIA - they could devise a way to wage the war in such a way that to break the spirit and maximize sectarian strife.

A tactic of announcing targets and delivering on them every day - like today we kill Revolutionary Guard personnel, tomorrow we set fires to oil wells, next day power plants. Tell in advance where they will be but choose such locations that whatever forces Iran could scramble couldn't get there in time. And hit them if they try.

Your goals moves from military victory to creating a total feeling of helplessness. Take the tactics pimps use to break the girls and scale them to country size.

Iran is too big to invade - but this also means it is too big to secure.

Your goals moves from military victory to creating a total feeling of helplessness. Take the tactics pimps use to break the girls and scale them to country size.

The first tactic pimps use is target selection, not breaking girls - to a first approximation you can only profitably turn out a girl who was broken to begin with. If the mullahocracy was that kind of girl, I doubt they would have lasted as long as they did.

That’s what they’re doing now and it isn’t working. Everything military is hardened under rock. You can make the civilian population suffer but it won’t stop the shooting. And the gulf states and Burgerland have a lot more shiny things in the region to break than Iran does.

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