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 was going to debunk some of these claims but I see other Mottizens have already done so. I'll just say that when this war was a few days old my first question to someone claiming it as a great success was:
I'm probably one of the biggest "Iran won" advocates here but I never claimed that they'd literally start conquering their neighbors or obliterating carriers (mostly since the USN isn't stupid enough to park a carrier in range of Iranian anti-ship missiles), just that they'd be like the Houthis on steroids, capable of absorbing Trump's blows and inflicting serious economic damage on the world for basically no benefit to the average American, ultimately provoking a political backlash that will make American politicians in the future think twice about messing with Iran for fear of becoming Jimmy Carter or Trump.
Then, a few months later, I specifically asked you a question:
I notice you never replied to that one. If Iran is broken and everything is fine then would everything still be fine if Trump pulled a Joe Kent and left? As others have pointed out, you seem to have no clear definition of what would constitute "Trump losing" short of Trump literally going on TV and admitting defeat.
Also a few side points,
Easily: Iran didn't "bomb the UAE", they bombed Emirati ships in Emirati waters. The Emiratis thought the Mullahgeld would give them protection to resume shipping through the Strait but Iran disagrees. They're willing to accept bribes to avoid hitting land based infrastructure, as evidenced by the disparity between strikes on Bahrain and Kuwait vs the UAE and Qatar, but they clearly consider control of the Strait to be their most powerful card, one they'll never sell at any price.
Well, since the last time you claimed "Trump won!" the price of crude has risen, the diesel crack spread has expanded, the Dollar is down and bond yields are up. Why does every market indicator contradict your fantastic story about invisible supertankers effortlessly breaking the blockade?
Why does Trump Chickening Out consistently result in Crude prices falling while Trump (or Iran) escalating consistently cause them to spike if Iran is powerless regardless? Why does Trump constantly oscillate between claiming a Deal is imminent and threatening to annihilate Iran if everything is going his way? Presumably he could just go "we've got Iran where we want them and now I'm going to focus on American priorities" and let the problem solve itself.
Do you want to say that Iran controls the Straits? I think it’s getting harder to say this with a straight face and an open heart.
Ok, where is the serious economic damage?
I just think this is a dumb question. Why would America surrender the field when we are winning?
I am on the record many times saying that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon and will never toll the straits.
Everyone in the world understands bombing ships as an act of war except apparently Iran and you. That’s literally what the flags on ships are for.
And it’s down since the war began.
This is basically his exact position. Trump posted today that he’s fine to continue blockading Iran because they won’t take a deal.
Face it: Iran cannot control the Straits, cannot inflict any blows on the United States, and their only hope of changing the situation is begging on social media for Democrats to win the election. Trump has them exactly where he wants them, which is also why he’s been in no particular rush. Iran is blustering strength because that’s all they can do to save face.
More options
Context Copy link
If America just walked away Iran would still continue their extortion, with noone to help sneak ships past it. So the situation would be worse than just continuing the current status quo.
This is a stupid question. For example Venezuela is more undisputably beaten, yet there's good reason to get more involved there, such as normalizing relations and setting up renewed resource extraction. And all of this needs some military in the region to keep things in order, even though likely they won't fight at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link