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.
And this is the final problem with your argument: we’re not debating that the American military has made progress on its goals, we’re just debating how much.
I’m going to take these in a different order:
We all agree this has substantially happened so there is no need to belabor it.
Iran will never produce a nuclear weapon. Here is a very simple proof: since Iran would win by producing a nuclear weapon, and Iran has not produced a nuclear weapon, they can’t do it. They’ve had six months and failed.
America bombed their nuclear facilities. It doesn’t matter how much they are destroyed or “merely” trapped underneath buried-in tunnels. America has the power to stop Iran’s nuclear development whenever we want. Iran has no ability to retaliate.
Six months ago, everybody agreed that Iran could rebuild the facilities when the war was over and that the war would have to end because Iran could control the Straits. Turns out they can’t control the Straits. We could continue the war indefinitely, and they could not produce nukes. We could end the war and they could try again, in which case we bomb them again, and they can’t retaliate — again!
Or they could surrender.
Undoubtedly, Iran still has missiles and occasionally still fires them. But this is pretty reduced from where they were before. It’s undeniable that America has bombed Iran’s facilities and destroyed many. The exact numbers are up for debate.
But what does it matter? Look at it like this: when did the Iranians last bomb anything that mattered? They are totally out of juice. In March they were bombing apartment buildings. They can’t do that anymore. The last time they shot anything, a few days ago, they launched 20 missiles (lmao) and hit a few parked military assets. Causing, essentially, no change in the status quo.
Similarly to the point above about nukes, the proof is that Iran has had six months and done very little. They can still build missiles? Ok, they’ve had six months to do it now, where is the military barrage? I they would be raining down thousands of missiles on Bahrain, Tel Aviv, Jeddah. Where is it?
It’s not meaningful if Iran can still technically build missiles and launch a few that get intercepted every now and then. If I have you locked in an armbar and you are still capable of very ineffectual light punches that don’t stop me at all, then it’s all over except for the knockout.
Or they could surrender.
I think it’s undeniable here that Iran’s allies and proxies have seen serious rollbacks. Hamas and Hezbollah have been seriously hit. Iranian militias in Iraq are being rolled up as the government works to purge them in cooperation with the Americans.
Moreover, Iran’s capacity to fund these networks is seriously degraded: they’re bankrupt! They are facing massive inflation. America is squeezing them out of the financial system with sanctions on the companies that give them lifelines and denying them the power to produce oil.
It’s like watching a patient bleed out on the tarmac and concluding, well, he has a lot of blood left maybe he’ll go psycho mode.
The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen, who are capable of rolling back the Saudis. But that isn’t much of an obstacle to Trump’s war games.
The proof, again, is in the dog that didn’t bark in the night: America is targeting Iran at will and Iran cannot retaliate. Now that the straits are clearly under America’s control there is not even a theory of how they can retaliate. They aren’t building nukes or launching swarms of thousands of missiles. At best, every few weeks, they bomb a tarmac somewhere or attack a neutral third party and kill a sailor without even sinking any ships.
Iran is totally impotent. Trump won.
The only counter argument is that maybe they still have some factories somewhere. We don’t really know. The newspapers say they do.
How long do you think it takes to make a nuclear weapon?
Longer than it takes us to bomb them.
Cute.
Let me ask this a different way: if it were possible to have built a deliverable nuclear weapon within 6 months, why don't they already have one? They were off the JCPOA since Trump's first term. Or, hell, if we're to accept the Republican narrative, they were building a nuclear program the entire time they were on it. It's been 134 months since the JCPOA was signed, and 100 months since Trump backed out. You can pick either as the start date from when the Iranians began earnestly trying to build a nuke. You'll notice both are much longer than 6 months. Where are the nukes?
Or, would you argue that actually this is a process that takes years? That maybe it's a long research and development cycle, but Iran was finally getting near the end of it, and only timely action now (February) was enough to stop them from nuking Tel-Aviv or whatever by March. I believe the Netanyahu standard is about two weeks away. I mean, that's plausible. Except last summer, your dude told all of us that he had "completely and totally obliterated" iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. As he said: “We’re not at war with Iran … We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program … and we did it without endangering the lives of American pilots. That’s an incredible thing.”
So like... was he lying? Did he realize that actually he totally oversold it, and Iran's way better at building a nuclear program despite being bombed than he thought, and now we have to start a whole regional war that does get our people and lots of others killed to actually do the job he told us he did? And if that's the case, and it turns out you can spool up an entire, imminently-deliverable-bomb-producing nuclear weapons program in less than a year from "complete obliteration", I ask you again, where are all their nukes? They've had years and years of being unconstrained by our bombs or our diplomacy, and seemingly nothing to show for all their very, very active work trying to build a bomb all these many long years. North Korea managed it with an economy ten times smaller, a famine, and literally nothing that resembles Iran's scientific corpus. Where's the bombs that they should have been producing all this time, if they were actually trying to do so, like your ilk keep telling me?
I won't defend what Trump said, but you have to remember (as always) that he loves to exaggerate. Take him seriously, but not literally.
In particular, this isn't our first rodeo with Iran's nuke program. This has been going on a very long time, like since the 90s. They were strongly sanctioned by most of the world during the 2000s to try and make them stop, which didn't work, but it did at least limit their resources. We used the Stuxnet cyberattack to destroy their centrifuges, and Israel assassinated some of their nuclear scientists. That helped, it did set them back a lot, but eventually they rebuilt. The JCPOA got them to stop developing it publicly, but they were still developing it secretly, just at a slower pace. After that there were a serious of cyberattacks, covert actions, and bombing raids to disrupt Iran's nuke program. Most famously, there was Operation Midnight Hammer, where a group of stealth bombers dropped 10,000 kg MOABS on the mountain where they were hiding their centrifuges. In other words, if you actively bomb them, it becomes hard to finish a nuke, although they were objectively close to finishing one before they got bombed.
However the nuclear material is still there, it's just dispursed into the soil now. It really wouldn't be all that hard for them to dig it out and re-process it into a nuclear weapon at this point. We're not talking about a Manhattan Project style leap of engineering, it's just a lot of brute labor at this point. Like you said, North Korea managed it with a much smaller economy, because we did nothing much to stop them. As a result, they feel free to do things like launch cyberattacks or send troops to help Russia. I would prefer not to give Iran the same leverage.
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