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 -
Something very strange is going on. Iran is negotiating its surrender. The war is over and Iran has lost.. I have been assured that the United States has destroyed Iran's ability of their proxies to project power in the Middle East.
Yet somehow, despite this war goal being accomplished and the war being over, Saudi Arabia is still being attacked by Iran's Proxies..
At least 12 people were killed and over 300 injured in a Houthi missile attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh on Saturday, October 10, 2026. This marks the third strike on the facility in one week and the deadliest attack in a Gulf Arab country since the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran began in February.
In response, President Donald Trump stated the U.S. is considering joining Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against the Houthis, while the U.S. Embassy issued a security alert urging American citizens to avoid the Riyadh airport.
So to summarize, it looks like the war is expanding, Iran's proxies continue to be able to strike US allies, and Iran's proxies are escalating the conflict instead of backing down.
With early voting opening up soon for many states, what are the chances Iran has an October surprise in store for Trump? Trump has stated that the U.S. will not resume military strikes on Iran before the November 3, 2026 (midterm election). The U.S. military is deploying roughly 9,000 to 10,000 additional troops to the Middle East, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the USS Makin Island amphibious readiness group, which departed San Diego on October 4–5, 2026. This surge brings the total U.S. military presence in the region to over 60,000 personnel and establishes three aircraft carrier strike groups in the theater for the first time since April 2026.
So Iran knows that Trump wants the Iran War to quiet down before the Midterms, but he is preparing to escalate once it is over. Why would they play along with this? I believe there is a good chance they will escalate and cause Trump and Republicans political embarrassment soon. But maybe this doesn't matter, because for some reason, the Houthis don't count. So I guess everything is going according to plan. So this all could just be nothing.
I'm genuinely confused about why the Iranians (apparently) care about the midterms. Didn't we just get through four years of the Democrats letting Israel do whatever it pleased? Congressional dems have already shown that they have no intention of doing anything that might put a stop to the war, and see it as someone they don't like taking a hit to do something they wanted done anyways.
The Russians, in contrast, seem to understand now that the political establishment is pretty thoroughly neoconservative regardless of the sentiments of the American people, which is why they're willing to take cash to do something that helps the political fortunes of an administration that hasn't been very friendly with them.
I do think that either country could achieve a lot by pointing out that Lindsay Graham openly mocked Trump to the press while selling him on this war, presenting him as gullible and dismissing the voices of his supporters. Reminding him that the neoconservatives he's taking hits for despite him might make him less inclined to do as they say.
The goal for Iran is to establish that attacking them is a mistake which will cost the ruling party their majority.
From where I stand, this is very sound reasoning with regard to their long-term interests. They correctly model both US parties as being more interested in clinging to power than following the long term interests of the US (whatever these may be) in foreign policy.
If Trump had known how messy his special military operation would get, he would not have attacked Iran. (Unless Bibi has way more dirt on him than I think.)
While it was psychologically important for Trump to negotiate a better deal with Iran than Obama's deal, he will not sacrifice his presidency on the alter of keeping Iran from having nukes. The plan was clearly to bomb Iran, hopefully get a regime change, or at least shock and awe them enough that they will agree to terms which Trump can easily sell as a victory. "Look at me, I am a decisive Republican president who gets shit done, not some pussyfoot Democrat who is too chickenshit to bomb our enemies in case the bombs have a disparate impact on minorities." Only it turned out that Obama had good reasons not to go to war with Iran -- squeamishness about bombing Muslims was certainly no fault of his.
It is also in the short-term interests of Iran to get the Democrats back into power. They do not own the war, and they can probably concede the strait to Iran without the Republicans making a stink. By contrast, Trump needs the war to continue until he gets out something which he can sell as a victory or he dies, whatever happens first.
Traditionally, both the Republicans and the Democrats have been against a Russian hegemony, but Trump was always lukewarm in his support of Ukraine. Presumably because he thought him negotiating a peace deal would win him the Nobel, but also MAGA is politically closer to Russia than to Western Europe. Besides, while the Western leaders treat him with disdain just because he threatened to end the Persian civilization, the non-democratic leaders take him as serious as anyone.
I honestly think he would, under my "Boomer Common Sense" model of Trump. "Sacrificing the presidency" is talk for nerds writing papers in college. It's entirely the wrong framing. Do you, or do you not, act to stop an avowed mortal enemy that is currently much weaker than you from getting the city-destroying superweapon?
Yeah. Duh. Common fucking sense. Even arguing about it is the province of bloodless dorks and proof of why they should never have any real power.
I understand that framing may be difficult to process for someone who has contorted themselves into pretending that "Western leaders" have only come to disdain Trump since Iran, but I think it explains his actions much better than either the "8-D Chess" stuff MAGA used to argue or whatever iteration of "screaming chicken dumb dumb poopy pants" projection that the libs are on these days.
This might hold up if Trump hadn't claimed to have obliterated the city-destroying superweapon program several months prior with Midnight Hammer.
Why would this change anything? The Iranian regime obviously wants Nuclear weapons. Until they are completely destroyed or have changed their strategic calculus, every action to destroy or delay their nuclear capability is just mowing the grass.
I brush my teeth twice a day every day. The fact that I have to keep doing it doesn’t mean it’s not important or I don’t actually ‘mean it’.
Not every military action will be decisive. Not even a minority of them.
One of my favorite books on military strategy is “The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire” by Luttwak and a running theme is the Byzantines dealing with the same nomadic tribes over and over again, bribing them to attack each other or annihilating one army while holding another one at bay.
There currently exist some permanent, existential enemies of the US and the Islamic Republic is certainly one of them, and they’ve proven themselves in the regard over and over again since 1979.
The fact that Israel benefits from this has acted basically just as a derangement of the plain, obvious truth the Islamic Republic is anti-American by nature.
The term Trump used for the Iranian nuclear program after Midnight Hammer was "obliterated". Not "damaged", "delayed" or "set back": "obliterated". Perhaps English is your second or third language but by using the term "obliterated" Trump indicated that he thought that Midnight Hammer was, in fact, decisive. Unfortunately he left no room for this brand of copium.
You’re telling me, at this point in your life you are surprised when a politician exaggerates for effect? How old are you?
Also. If I obliterate something, does that mean that it can never, ever be resumed in any way in another form, or another place? Or that obliteration removes even the desire that produced the action in the first place?
Is English not your first language?
This isn’t copium. A lot of people have deranged themselves into being unable to understand the simple reality of things, disguising their sophistry as sophistication.
New levels of cynicism unlocked. You're upset that a politician lied? Psh.
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
More options
Context Copy link