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 -
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
griftstalks, 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.
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:
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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:
This seems as true as it was then.
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.
Ok? What was even the point of the MOU then, in your opinion?
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?
More options
Context Copy link
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?
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?
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.
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:
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!
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 options
Context Copy link
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link