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 -
Pardon me since we did this just so soon but, yes, I'm ready to go again:
Iran has lost significant control of the Strait of Hormuz
Despite Iranian claims to control the Strait and shut down shipping, ships are increasingly making the passage. Ships are turning off transponders (eluding both the Iranians and OSInt twitter prose) and trusting in American protection. And the smaller number of ships making the passage often belies that these ships are carrying more than previous ships did before them:
It appears that America's strategy is working: Iran is increasingly hemmed in, unable to break the American blockade, threatened by inflation and sanctions, dwindling military supplies rendering its threats on the Straits weaker and weaker.
One of the theories invoked last time we had this discussion was that countries like UAE are in fact paying bribes to Iran, meaning that Iran in fact is collecting tolls on the Strait and it's really Trump that's impotent. How's that going?
UAE Cuts Economic Ties With Iran After Missiles Target Territory
Iran's strategy of bombing neutral nations, or declaring that neutral nations are actually working in concert with the Americans and therefore are justifiable targets, appears not to be making it any allies. It appears, in fact, to be more isolated than ever as more countries come around to the American line of thinking.
According to Al Jazeera, however, Iran denies bombing UAE.
So, how do we reconcile these claims? I would humbly suggest that Iran is less and less in control of itself, with political battles between hardliners and those who want to surrender, inflation, a puppet Supreme Leader who has not been seen in public since his supposed inauguration, and a military increasingly acting without any central command or foresight. I would suggest, in fact, that Iran has lost, which remains the case even if the Iranian regime does not fall and continues to make absurd pronouncements that they are actually winning.
Speaking of that...
Trump Responds as Iran Says U.S. Must Meet These Six Demands If Strait of Hormuz Is to Reopen
It looks like Iran is no closer to surrendering than they were a few months ago. And their public-facing demands are clearly non-starters -- unless anyone wants to argue that America is about to eminently surrender and accept these terms -- although it's not clear why they would. Because, at this point, here is where we are at:
Iran is not going to toll the straits. Iran cannot toll the straits. This is as powerful as they're going to get, it's all downhill from here, and it's not very powerful for them. Iran is never going to get nuclear weapons. Iran is never going to break the American blockade. Iran is never going to push America out of the Gulf. They have two options: surrender, or not. And it doesn't matter if they choose not to surrender, because America can continue doing this indefinitely. If anything, the longer this goes on, the cheaper it becomes as Iran's power wanes, more ships transit the gulf, more oil bypasses the Gulf entirely, and the easier it becomes for America to patrol.
What's changed recently? Well, not much. This is just the continuation of what's been going on all along. When America launched this war it significantly crippled Iran's ability to respond, and Iran's threat to control the Strait of Hormuz, which sounded so impressive at first, has turned more and more hollow. I don't expect this argument to be any more popular than the last time I made it, but I want to note again that the predictions that Iran was winning or would win have not been born out, have never been born out. Iran has lost, whether they surrender or not, whether people believe their blustery threats or not.
This is only going to become more and more obvious.
It seems like you keep circling around the same points you won't quite touch. Let me ask this:
What does "winning" mean for the US?
Because I don't think anyone ever claimed Iran could militarily defeat the US. And everyone knows that the US could, if it were willing to expend unlimited monies and go scorched earth, end the regime and even occupy the country. We could turn Iran into a parking lot. We could turn Iran into a colony. That we have the military power to do this has never been in doubt. What has been, and is, in doubt is whether we have the money and the political will to... do anything other than lob some missiles at them and declare "mission accomplished."
You say Iran does not "meaningfully" control the Strait of Hormuz. No, they don't. It's true, ships can sail through it and probably emerge unscathed. And yet, it's still considered dangerous, because Iran is still shooting at them, and strangely, commercial vessels are not comforted by being told "They'll probably miss you."
If we were "winning" the way you say we are, I would expect us to be in complete, undisputed, absolute control of the Straits. As in, zero Iranian missiles. No ships being threatened. None. Nada. Iran incapable of posing a threat to so much as a dingy, either because they literally no longer have the capacity to threaten, or know that firing one shot will bring consequences they are unwilling to bear.
That's not where we are. Why not? What have we accomplished? I want to know what my ROI is as an American taxpayer who's paying this bill. What have we won? Killing a lot of Iranians and making them spend a generation rebuilding does nothing for me as an American. I actually... don't care a lot about Israel, so Iran being less likely to attack Israel (note: less, not "will never happen again") is also not something I am invested in. Iran less likely to build nuclear weapons is some small benefit, but I remain unconvinced by your confident assurances that in 10 years Iran will not be building nuclear weapons. Iran not sponsoring terrorism anymore? Zero Islamic jihadist organizations being funded by Iran? That seems... very optimistic.
So tell me what we won. Kicking over a country like it's an anthill is a very expensive "victory" if you use a fleet of backhoes to do it and the ants are just going to keep stinging you.
Maybe not you or anyone you know or want to think of as representing your opinion. But I hear this kind of stuff all the time. Someone in a different comment thread thinks Iran could invade Kuwait. I have heard on this site that Iran has the upper hand and all the cards. The more that becomes obviously untrue the more we start shifting the goalposts.
You’ve basically just defined out the concept of the word “winning” in the progressive present tense. You won’t accept “winning,” this logic will only admit when we’ve “won”. The score might be 52-2, but the game is still going so who can say who is winning?
It’s both the case that America is winning and that the war isn’t over and totally, definitely, 100% done and won. But obviously America has inflicted destruction on Iran at will, and Iran’s one meaningful way to retaliate is losing force. The war could go on for another year, and Iran could keep shooting progressively weaker and weaker missiles as more and more ships cross the Straits. Is it not ridiculous to not understand that as America operationally winning?
So to return to the beginning:
Trump laid out his war aims at the beginning of the war. You tell me how we’re doing:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack
If you're talking about me, to set the record straight (strait?), I certainly think Iran could attempt to invade Kuwait, if they wanted to, as a treat. But I wouldn't use my post as an example of uh Iranian triumphalism. I think it would likely be an absolute slaughter.
Fair enough yeah sometimes it’s hard to tell what people mean and I’ve heard a lot of weird arguments. I give it
95% odds Iran is doing absurd classic Persian bluster negotiation cope,5% they actually try something and it goes disastrously badly.Yeah that's...fair. I also think I've pushed back on some of your arguments before which might have given you the impression that I am an Iranian triumphalist but I spend the other half of my time on here arguing against those guys.
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