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 -
Bloomberg: Goldman Says Gulf Oil Flows Two-Thirds of Prewar Level
A lot of ships are still making the crossing dark with transponders turned off but the trend is clear. Iran’s (supposed) leverage over the strait is basically nullified, oil is passing through despite Iranian proclamations. Independent analysts now agree with what the US government was saying weeks ago, that millions of barrels are passing through the strait under American auspices.
US CENTCOM agrees, putting out this statement that the US has escorted a few thousand ships through the Gulf, carrying through three-quarters of a billion barrels of oil over the past few months.
What changed?
Axios: "That sucker is open": U.S. gains the upper hand in the battle for Hormuz
The US has apparently de-mined the Straits of Hormuz, although, interestingly, there don’t seem to have been many mines in the first place!
It seems as though Iran’s capacities to threaten ship traffic the Strait were severely degraded by US military action, but that Iran was successfully able to convince news reporters and insurance companies that it could target ships.
For instance, Brady Sullivan at CNBC says
Meanwhile, Reuters: Pipelines and ports: Iran war spurs Gulf infrastructure investment
Not only has Iran lost control over the Straits, but Gulf states are building new pipelines to reroute oil around the Straits so that Iran can never threaten them again.
And how does it look inside Iran?
WSJ: Labor Protests and Panic Buying Signal Growing Pressure in Iran
————
Some might remember Trump’s infamous comments on this subject some months ago:
The Shakes take: Iran will never toll the straits, Iran will never have nuclear weapons, Trump was right about everything, a lot of people who believed Iranian claims are looking very, increasingly, increasingly!, foolish.
Cool story bro. I hate that you keep putting me on the same side as [
the likes ofETA: self-edit, this was too antagonistic] @hanikrummihundursvin and @coffee_enjoyer (I don't buy the "We did this at the behest of our Zionist masters" narrative), but it looks to me like the situation is materially worse for the US than before the war started, and the fact that it's much worse for Iran does nothing for me. I will ask you again: what is the benefit to me, as an American taxpayer? In what way is America now richer and safer? "We won we won we won!" okay, cool, what did we win?This is not an impressive question to me. The American military undergirds a global economic system that contributes to Americans being fabulously wealthy. War makes us rich.
It’s a little like asking me, how does bench pressing help me lose weight? How does studying math help me go to college? I’m not sure what you even mean by that. Do you want a defense of the underlying principle or the specific action? Bench press is a good exercise for growing muscle which helps you lose weight. Math trains you how to think in abstract terms even if you will study art. War with Iran strengthens the American global system that makes us wealthy even if it seems like it costs a lot of money.
Nevertheless here are some of the benefits of war with Iran:
America exerts greater control over the oil-producing region of the world. This control eventually produces price stability (America can’t get bent over by OPEC)
America destroys its major opponent for projecting power in the Gulf, which strengthens the American military’s position as the basis of global order and therefore your personal finances
America destroys a state sponsor of terror that would kill Americans and other allies throughout one part of the earth
America stops the proliferation of nuclear weapons to another country hostile to America (which would undermine the global security on which our tremendous wealth is based)
American allies in the Gulf are drawn more tightly to American will which allows us to advance a host of interests (finance, business deals, supply chain logistics, etc.)
Basically, war with Iran is good because it makes America more powerful and American power is the basis of the global system. We do not actually have as much as we now have if the world is so insecure that any medium-sized power can push around its neighbors and America retreats. Fortress America does not have the same wealth and security if the Gulf wants theocracy, Europe wants autarky, pirates can roam free between Constantinople and Gibraltar, terrorists can kidnap Americans or even Saudis, etc etc.
I think this is all more or less understood.
The problem has long been was that War with Iran was assumed to be more expensive than it would be worth. And Trump went against that calculation and launched a war anyways. Currently, it seems like Trump was right: oil prices have not risen significantly, Iran has been unable to retaliate, and America is acquiring control over a major global choke point.
I find your answer equally unimpressive.
So, we should just be starting wars right and left? Why not start a war with Russia? With China? With anyone who briefly inconveniences us? Come on. War has a cost and you are asserting without evidence that all wars are net profitable.
If by bombing Iran, we will achieve price stability and a permanent decrease in military opposition to America and terrorist activities in the Gulf, it is plausible (though hardly a given) that this will be net profitable in the long term, but I am not the only one to doubt this, and my doubt is not some reflexive abhorrence of military action or empire. Stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is, again, something you have repeatedly insisted is a mission accomplished, there is no world in which Iran will build nuclear weapons again. I would argue that Iran certainly can begin trying to build nuclear weapons again in a few years, and if your answer is "We'll keep bombing them," then the cost of having to bomb Iran every few years in perpetuity is something we kind of need to factor into our budget. (This is without even considering the human and political cost- you might not care at all about America becoming Rome, or just killing Iranians whenever we feel like it, but I do and I think these things should be put honestly to the electorate.)
All your other high speech about ending theocracy in the Gulf, autarky in Europe, and piracy in the Mediterranean, is just that: nice words flowing from your belief that God-Emperor Trump will stretch his hand forth over the waters and the seas themself shall obey his will. I am beginning to believe that you, unironically and unmetaphorically, believe literally that. I do not and remain skeptical that bombing Iran will make the entire world our bitch and treasure will flow into our coffers forevermore.
This is such an obviously mistaken idea of what I am saying that one of us has badly screwed up. I think it’s you, because I obviously included an accounting of why this specific war is a good deal and did not assert anything close to the position that all wars are good.
No my answer is that the fact that we can bomb them at will makes it impossible for them to even pursue nuclear weapons and they will long before this have to negotiate peace.
I gave you a very mechanical answer about how this war will improve the American security posture. I think you don’t want to actually confront my position because you continue to introduce “I love pancakes” “you hate waffles” misunderstandings into your text so you can argue against something.
What else is there to say? I am laying out what I think is clear evidence that America is winning the war and that the war is good for America and you are accusing me of comic book rhetoric
You said:
And compared my asking why war with Iran is good for us with asking how bench pressing helps lose weight. That was not a nuanced explanation of how this particular war is good (I answered your arguments for Iran specifically), it's a blank assertion that war is good.
We have always been able to bomb them at will. Why did this not stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons before? If your answer is "No one before Trump was willing to do it," then what keeps them from just waiting out Trump? We're not going to invade, we're not going to unseat the regime. At worst, they spend a few hard years, which we know the regime does not care about, however much suffering that inflicts on the Iranian people. We have many examples of irrational and unreasonable regimes holding out much longer than we think we can because "Surely they can't take any more of this" turns out to be wrong. Irrational and unreasonable regimes can hold out longer than one belligerent American administration can remain in power and threaten to bomb them harder next time.
I am. Understand, I am not saying that as a bit. I have read your narratives about Trump, comparing him to everyone from Washington to Naruto. I believe you believe the things you say about him. I am not exaggerating when I say I believe the things you believe about him are in the realm of comic book rhetoric. Yes, I realize you do not think what you believe is cartoonish, but the difference between us is that I could be persuaded that what Trump is doing is succeeding (your arguments so far are not persuasive, nor is what my lying eyes see on the global market), whereas you have demonstrated repeatedly that there is no plausible situation in which you will acknowledge that what Trump is doing is not succeeding, you will just change the win conditions.
Four months ago you wrote:
Iran is out of money, is running out of missiles, and certainly isn’t tolling the straits if the Americans are getting ships through.
A month ago you sarcastically wrote:
Can I say now that the Iranian military threatening ships was fake news? Does that at least look plausible when the mines are fake and the ships are passing through? Because I really think if you are going to work yourself up into high dudgeon about how crazy I am you have to actually be right.
Man. "High dudgeon" now. Where do you people get this stuff?
No, you cannot say that the Iranian military threatening ships is fake news when ships are only passing through because of the presence of the US navy. Clearly we cannot pack up and go home yet, so nothing I said one month or four months ago is wrong, and you're doing that thing where, when pressed on a variety of assertions, you ignore all but one and change definitions.
I would, in fact, like us to "win", though I was and am against the war because I have yet to see how it's going to benefit us. You, like Trump, are promising many things, the best things, the most winning things, we will win so hard we'll be tired of it, and yet we're still spending and spending without an ROI, and you've redefined "Iran is defeated and no longer a threat" to "Iran can't do anything (except launch missiles at its neighbors) as long as we keep our carrier group in the area."
I don't care if Iran is broke and out of missiles if we're just doing this again in a few years. If you at least pointed to how this exercise will intimidate China or put us in a better position to counter China and Russia, I could see some value there, but the opposite seems to be true. So you may not be impressed by my demanding to know how this benefits me, but since I'm a taxpayer and I vote I think it's a fair question, that for all your insistence that "war makes us richer" you have not answered except with Trumpisms.
“You people”? “Where do I get this stuff?” Do you have any argument beyond being rude and nasty?
Strait traffic is 2/3rds of pre-war normal, I think this is substantial evidence that war critics were wrong. I think a lot of war critics are uninterested in the possibility. But Iran won’t ever control the Strait or acquire nuclear weapons. It was easy and cheap when everyone said it would be hard. And Trump was right to do it.
My argument is extremely consistent and instead of interacting with it you seem to just be looking for an excuse to act righteous.
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
It would also allow for an eventual drawdown of American forces in the region, similar to how America doesn't really feel a need to keep significant forces on standby in the Med or Caribbean
This would require regime change to something non-hostile to the US, which doesn't look like it's in the cards. If the Iranian regime folds without collapsing, the US will still need to keep significant presence in the area.
I don't think this is strictly speaking true. The US didn't need regime change in Cuba for the Caribbean to become an area of much less concern to it, for instance: sufficiently degraded capabilities suffice.
I do think this (or at least the specific example of Cuba) suggests that long-term sanctions that stick against Iran would probably be necessary in the alternative to keeping a major force presence, and I'm not sure if Iran could be as easily sanctioned as Cuba.
Cuba is a small island nation with no real industry. Iran is a real country with its own industrial base.
Fair enough distinction, although it sounds like things are already pretty bad over there after just a short blockade.
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