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 -
Define 'better for Iran.'
Sympathy only matters if that translates into a meaningfully policy change, as opposed to policy paralysis that leaves a 'loosing' status quo in even longer because- even though sympathetic- the Democrats aren't willing to make the sort of concessions Iran has been demanding. Or worse, escalation, as the sort of provocations/escalations that Trump might have been willing to turn a relatively blind eye towards due to his unique considerations lead the Democratic replacement to consider a political threat if they don't respond.
It's certainly popular in democracies too wishcast 'the foreign adversary will drop it's demands for unpopular concessions when my party comes into power, and it's in their own interests to do so,' but that, uh, has a mixed record at best.
Meanwhile, 'better for Iran' comes in the context of Iran having an economic crisis where the status quo policy is that Iran's situation gets worse the longer it continues. Trump was/is willing to strike a deal of ambiguous advantage, but some of the tradeoffs of the deal get inherently worse for Iran because greater and greater costs are incurred and are functionally irreversible. Inflation that already occurred is not going to be reversed to restored the consumer economy or businesses that already shutter. Every additional month blocking the strait to demand tolling rights is another month the Arabs progress on pipeliness to bypass the strait altogether. It's also a situation of worsening leverage- the closer Iran comes to a position where it's concerns (economic-driven social unrest) are more likely, the worse leverage it has.
It's also a dynamic that even 'sympathetic' Democrats might happily accept, since if they work from a position of expecting to come into power in 2029, then their relative prospects for a 'successful' Iran deal get better the worse things get for Iran in the first place. Especially since they can claim impotent opposition for two years, while minimizing political costs by not actually pushing for policy change, while maximizing political points with the sympathetic-to-iran/hostile-to-israel electorate by talking about how bad that is. Like most 'vote for me to fix the problems' sympathy pitches, the election incentive isn't to actually fix the problem. No one votes on the basis of gratitude as much as future gains.
At which point, Iran- rather than getting a deal months ago under a Republican trifecta, or in the next two years under a Trump-led split government, gets to start trying to make a deal in earnest after another two years of inflation and related economic issues...
...but perhaps the sympathetic democrats will agree to cover the bill for that?
I’m just basing it on the past. Trump is the most hawkish on Iran we’ve ever had. Obama did the JCPOA. I’d rather deal with Democrats than Trump in Iran’s shoes. They might be cooked though either way. Like you said, Democrats probably won’t give in to their maximalist demands either, but they may get a better deal. They can’t be seen as being too weak though, so they have their own constraints.
More options
Context Copy link
Democrats might unilaterally end the blockade and protection of ship traffic, abandoning the war. At which point Iran is in full control of the strait, a big win for them. They can continue attacking the pipelines at will. And without the threat of bombing and with all their nuclear material they can restart their nuclear weapons program. Another big win for them.
Whether that's better than taking Trump's deal depends on how much the Iranians value their nuclear material and their defiance. And this seems to be "quite high", compared to how much they weigh the welfare of their people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link