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.
I don’t think the US won the Iran War (2025-ongoing). The obvious aim of the war, whatever you believe, was the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution and the fomenting of a popular uprising after the assassination of most of its leadership. That manifestly failed.
However, I also think the pro-Iranian case failed to materialize. Projections of $250/bbl from even reputable analysts have clearly not come true so far. Oil is less important and more widely sourced than it was during the oil crises of fifty years ago. The Iranian endgame remains unclear. They have suffered genuine setbacks, militarily and economically. The relationship with the UAE, where a huge proportion of Iranian exports are (were?) arranged, sold, managed, invested in, will take a very long time to recover.
Oil flows can be routed around the Hormuz. A Houthi gambit will just force the Saudis and Emiratis back together, and more fervently than before, which would be costly in Yemen. Even the Shia Iraqi state seems largely more interested in prosperity and economic growth than it is in supporting the holy war of its coreligionists in Persia. The more they push, the more likely the GCC states export via pipeline, something made much more easy in new routes via newly allied Syria. Iran could bomb the pipelines, but that would be a challenging escalation.
All the while, the world learns to adapt. The Iranian position weakens as time goes on and oil doesn’t spike to $250. The Strait of Hormuz becomes ever less important the longer it’s closed. They can obtain nuclear weapons, which guard against invasion, but do not sustain the axis of resistance.
This is what Israel wanted. Trump, I believe, would have been fine with far less.
Trump is Texas Sharpshootering here. Before the war, he said that his political goal was regime change. During the war he is saying that he didn't necessarily mean that, and is keeping his real political goals secret in order to confuse the enemy. After the war, he is going to declare that whatever he got, particularly if it is status quo ante is a YUUGE victory and the thing he was looking for all along. But if Trump's real political goal was (as he will no doubt claim) opening the Straits of Hormuz, he could have achieved it much more cheaply by not starting the war in the first place.
Iran can’t control the Straits in their own backyard let alone project force across the Middle East. How is that status quo ante
The Straits were open before the war, and Iran's ability to project force across the Middle East involved individual men crossing borders clandestinely with guns and bombs, which is not a capability they have lost.
They were transporting significantly heavier weapons than that. I'm pretty sure the Houthi missiles aren't (at least mostly) domestically produced, shall we say.
More options
Context Copy link
If before the war you had told the average person that America could bomb Iran, disable its nuclear sites, destroy its navy and drone factories, kill its top leaders, dismantle its militias, blockade its ports, and that in addition Iran wouldn't even be able to shut down traffic in the Straits, this would have been hailed as a wild American victory.
If before the war you had told the average person that at the end of the war the Iranian regime would still be in power, that the Straits would be marginally less open to shipping than before the war, that there would be no change in the status of the Iranian HEU stockpile that had been buried under rubble a year earlier, and that the US had achieved this result based on a huge drawdown of hard-to-replace munitions stockpiles, this would be seen as a draw, and a net negative for the American national interest.
Bombing Iran, destroying its navy, killing its top leaders, dismantling its militias, and blockading its ports doesn't benefit America unless it also delivers a political goal.
Go back a few months and people would say that Iran would close the Straits and America would have no way to open them, and everybody in the world knows this which is why nobody before Trump ever attacked Iran. Really I think you're making my point for me.
Iran will never have nuclear weapons.
This has been discussed a few times already but: the missiles that were drawn down were old supplies of some stock left over from the 90s, and some prototypes of some very recent weapons. The idea that the US blew a hole in its strategic munitions stockpiles is basically fake news.
It reaches a point... So we crushed our enemies, see them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women, but does it serve our goals? Well, yes, Iran is an enemy of America's foreign policy, regularly stages attacks on America and its allies, sponsors terror, threatens neutral third parties, wanted to acquire nuclear weapons so they could threaten to keep doing that forever -- and now America crushed that and has more power than ever before and substantially controls the world's oil markets.
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