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 -
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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