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 -
Judging the Iran War on its initial goals:
There has been so much talk about the Straight of Hormuz, that people are forgetting this was never an initial goal of the war. It's easy to forget that the Straight of Hormuz was open and not tolled by Iran before the war. So by definition, how could a war aim be to something that you already have. This would be like the US declaring War on Canada and saying one of the aims is to take New York.
So looking back, it's important to see what they initially said. This is straight from the White House itself [https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/04/president-trumps-clear-and-unchanging-objectives-drive-decisive-success-against-iranian-regime/](This is straight from the White House itself:)
Tonight, @POTUS will address the nation on Operation Epic Fury.
From day one, the objectives have been clear: obliterate Iran’s missiles and production, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure it never acquires a nuclear weapon.
Trump:
President Trump (March 2): “Our objectives are clear. First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones — pretty good ones they make. Second, we’re annihilating their navy… Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon… And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
Vice President JD Vance (March 2): “Whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it’s incidental to the President’s primary objective here — which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb.”
Secretary Rubio (March 3): “Our objectives remain, as they’ve been identified from the beginning and the President laid out clearly yesterday. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and we will not allow Iran to hide behind the immunity of a massive short-term ballistic missile inventory, or the ability to make them or launch them… As well as the destruction of their navy.”
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (March 4): “The mission is laser-focused: obliterate Iran’s missiles and drones and facilities that produce them, annihilate its navy and critical security infrastructure, and sever their pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran will never possess a nuclear bomb.”
It's obvious from these statements there were four goals:
The Straight of Hormuz is a red herring. The fact that we are even talking about it at all means we have gone backwards. The US has accomplished only one of its war aims and that was to destroy their Navy. The rest are not done and at best are TBD. If you had said 6 months ago that the war would still be ongoing that only one goal would be accomplished, what would you have said about the status of the war?
To me, and this is just my opinion, people would have said the war is not going well. Based on those four goals explicitly laid out by Trump, I don't see how you can say we are close to a victory.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ydld0gykpo](By the way, Trump himself says that the war will continue until at least November.)
Here he again explicitly mentions the nuclear weapons as a warm aim (that is not accomplished yet). Personally, I don't see this war ending any time soon. At this point, the Iran government has shown it is resilient and it is in a literal fight for its life. They can't back down now. Meanwhile, I don't see any way the US can accomplish its war aims without staying until the regime collapses. How long that takes I think is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, stocks of crude oil in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve fell to 285 million barrels last week, the lowest level since November 1982, according to data from the Department of Energy.
Trump is saying Iran won’t surrender even though they’ve lost. Because their only hope left is that Democrats win. Because they can’t win on the battlefield.
Were the Jews winning at Masada because they held the surging Romans at the gates? Were the Prussians losing in 1871 because the Commune controlled Paris and refused to surrender for months? What’s the argument being made? Trump is losing the war with Iran because Iran refuses to surrender?
It worked for the North Vietnamese, it worked for the Taliban, it is not unreasonable to expect that it will work for Iran.
Especially considering the lack of a solid theory of victory for the Americans beyond the usual feather puffing about nuking the region or launching a ground invasion (neither of which seem politically feasible for the US at the moment, nor particularly wise).
So far as I can see the Trump administrations policy is to try and find a way to wriggle free and declare victory, ideally after returning to something like the pre-war status quo. Failing that, a vague idea of an internal revolution brought about by choking Irans economy, which again seems a little dubious considering the regimes demonstrated commitment to gunning down internal opposition.
Technically speaking, as I point out over and over and over again, North Vietnam accepted defeat. The US withdrew, then North Vietnam invaded again, and South Vietnam actually won the first time- then they sacked their best general out of paranoia and North Vietnam winning the second time shocked everyone, including the North Vietnamese. The US believed that it had accomplished its war goals of building a functioning South Vietnamese state which could defend itself and preventing North Vietnam from total war.
More options
Context Copy link
This entire discussion has been about specific military goals and whether America achieved them or not.
Most of this list seems more tactical than strategic. By contrast, when the US entered WW1 to stop Germany from taking over Europe, their theory of victory was not that they would let their sons die in the trenches indefinitely.
On the strategic front, I guess that the destruction of three Kilo-class submarines (USSR, 1980) counts -- Iran likely has no way to replace them.
Most of the other stuff is more of a setback than anything of long-term consequences. Sure, you can keep Iran from getting a nuke if you keep dropping bunker-busting bombs on them indefinitely. This is not going to happen because the US foreign policy is never that consistent for long.
Take the previous effort to keep Iran from gaining a nuke, the JCPOA. Politically, it was a lot more sustainable than indefinite bombing -- economically net positive, no military commitment, enforcement through well-established institutions. It lasted for about three years before the US elected a narcissistic buffoon who thought that he was the master negotiator and any deal negotiated without him was therefore bad.
GWB's adventure in the ME permanently changed the strategic landscape there (but arguable for the worse). None of the things Trump did to Iran will have a long-term effect aside to further antagonizing them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Pre-war status quo is not when the Americans can destroy your military at any time, kill all your leaders, and you can’t do anything about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link