@TheAntipopulist's banner p

TheAntipopulist

Voltaire's Viceroy

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 02:32:36 UTC

				

User ID: 373

TheAntipopulist

Voltaire's Viceroy

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 02:32:36 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 373

It's just silly to rage at a politician once he's out of office. The buck stops with the voters: they chose him for nearly 10 years. I don't recall any massive protests against immigration before it became clear it was a problem. Ditto with COVID restrictions, which were broadly popular across the much of the West for quite a while. It's just dumb to demonize elected politicians doing things that are popular.

It's like Republicans rewriting history to imply the Iraq + Afghan wars were forced on them somehow by "the elites" or "the establishment", when in reality they were very popular at the beginning especially among the right. Then the public never stopped wanting a politician to somehow come in and make a square circle and "win" the wars in some nebulous way rather than just cut losses as they should have done.

they came to negotiate an end to the sanctions in 2015, and were willing to give up their nuclear program to do so.

It would have done it through monitoring and snapback sanctions that were severe enough to get them to come to the table in the first place.

Sure, it wouldn't have been enough if Iran was willing to become a permanent pariah state like North Korea, but they didn't want to become like that. The only foolproof method would have been regime change and another forever war, but the political will for that didn't exist.

More seriously, a blockade is an act of war. Arguably, it is not only an act of war against the country being blockaded, but also against any neutral country who wants to peacefully trade with the blockaded country.

This doesn't follow.

The UK blockaded Germany during WW1 and WW2, and it's not like this was the UK was declaring war on the entire world by doing so. The US is just moving to option 4 in the escalation ladder list. Blockading a country from trading with neutrals is generally seen as acceptable wartime behavior, and although it can cause consternation with 3rd parties, it's not seen as overtly hostile to them.

I'm a little older than your cutoff, but I remember trying to get a first job was absolutely brutal for almost everyone.

Now AI adds a little bit to that uncertainty. I like Noah Smith's take. The younger generation already gets a fairly raw deal with a terrible system to look for jobs, most of their tax money funneled to pensioners, a dating market equilibrium that's never been worse, ridiculous housing prices thanks to NIMBYs (another defacto tax going to the elderly), and now there's the looming threat of AI.

I personally think AI will just be a mostly normal technology like the internet, but that uncertainty doesn't help.

First off, you're welcome.

Secondly, yeah, I agree with what you're saying here. The US's anti prolif efforts were always uneven, and Pakistan got a few slaps on the wrist compared to the much more intense pressure that's been placed on Iran.

The best way I can describe it then is that the states with biggest incentive to pursue nukes are those being threatened by great powers, and those great powers have the most incentive to prevent them from getting one. There's a cynical element behind anti-prolif efforts as well as a broader humanitarian goal, and when the two coincide is when you get the biggest anti prolif efforts. Pakistan didn't really have any big disagreements with the US so the US's anti-prolif efforts against it were token, whereas with Iran the US has the humanitarian angle and the cynical angle.

It's all so tiresome.

The JCPOA wouldn't have done anything about Iran's arming of terrorists, and we can extrapolate that it would have actually made that problem worse since nuclear sanctions would have been removed on Iran, and they would have plowed some (perhaps most) of that money into more proxies, terrorists, missiles, etc. That's the primary vector people criticize the deal, and it's true there would have been a tradeoff. Israel and the neocons were extremely negative about the deal because of that.

But in terms of blocking Iran from getting a nuke, it would have indeed been very effective. That was the whole point.

Your 5 step plan would have required a full invasion and probably a lingering ground presence to enforce it. The UK and France wouldn't have anywhere near the capabilities to do that. America could probably do it, but it would be a huge investment of military resources and political will.

It's not fair to conclude that the JCPOA wouldn't have worked since most of its provisions were set up to prevent an Iranian breach of the deal, while in reality it was America unilaterally exiting that killed it. This was explicitly brought up when the US tried to trigger the snapback.

I mean, the US did try to pressure Pakistan away from having a nuke through the Pressler sanctions, the Glenn framework, and by getting the UNSC to condemn the practices. But Pakistan had the benefit of bordering Afghanistan which the US had an interest in 1) for defeating the Soviets during the 80s, and 2) for the GWOT after 9-11. Most of the sanction efforts came in the 90s when neither of those were relevant, but they stopped like 2 weeks after 9-11. And America was AFAICT the only state that made a major effort to stop Pakistan + India from getting nukes, so when it stopped bothering the effort withered.

Ignorant question: how confident are we of that?

Fairly confident. Not 100% mind you, but US intelligence penetration of Iran goes deep enough that it could assassinate the (justifiably) paranoid Ayatollah the minute he poked his head out. I'm not sure whether the US knew of Iran's longer-range missiles before they were fired, but keep in mind that Iran has already done the hard parts of making a bomb. Getting the fissile material in the first place is by far the hardest part, and the next hardest part is building a delivery device which Iran has plenty of experience in given its conventional ballistics program. It strains credulity to think Iran could do the hard parts of making the bomb, but then simply couldn't do the easier parts after years of the JCPOA being dead. This is why I buy the declassified US intelligence that the main bottleneck is Iran's decision not to go for the bomb rather than some technical bottleneck being the key driver.

From the link:

We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003

The snapback was supposed to be a threat preventing Iran from breaching the treaty unilaterally, but Trump had the US crash out of the treaty first. After that the Europeans tried to keep Iran in the deal by themselves without Iran, but eventually it became clear that Iran and the US would never come back to the deal, and they actually did initiate the snapback provisions.

There are so many legitimate reasons why the Orange Man is Bad that it's a bit depressing that so many people feel the need to make up fake reasons too. Like, the corruption, incompetence, and blatant buffoonery aren't enough? We have to pretend Trump is a pedophile too?

Clownworld theory.

The point of the JCPOA was to entice Iran away from getting a nuke, in return for sanctions relief. Calling the nuke program restrictions a "thin veneer" isn't accurate -- it was the central point! The deal included quite invasive monitoring and the snapback enforcement.

You're right that nuclear weapons massively deter outside intervention, but you're incorrect that the only cost in getting them is "successors can be as tyrannical as they want and nobody will come save you from them". If that was the case then basically every state would have an incentive to grab them ASAP as a get out of jail free card from outside powers. Because of this incentive, the international community (but really dominated by the great powers that already have nukes) have established sanctions, the NPT, and a bunch of informal pressure to ensure this doesn't happen to the extent possible. North Korea was already a hermit state so it didn't care. This is why Israel's official nuclear policy is one of ambiguity. Iran also didn't want to take on the diplomatic consequences, so the Ayatollah hoped the middle ground would be the sweet spot -- enough for implicit deterrence and to act as a potential bargaining chip, but not enough to become a permanent pariah like North Korea. He was just wrong about this.

Enough intel is public that we know Iran had a bunch of nearly bomb grade enriched uranium, but that they just stopped at that point and made no further effort to weaponize.

Iran had plenty of enriched uranium that it could have proceeded to build a bomb with at any time. The reason it didn't do so was because of the political calculation they made that having a bomb wasn't worth the costs. At best, US + Israeli attacks could lengthen the breakout time (the time from making a decision to go for a bomb to actually possessing one) from a few weeks to a few months/years, but they were never going to destroy or permanently disable Iran's ability to get a bomb.

The whole point of the JCPOA was to prevent Iran from getting a nuke, which it would have done quite effectively.

Likely if it was in effect the last 10 years there'd already have been a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

This is just pure fantasy.

banning Israeli visits on American soil, pruning all areas of government and journalism from pro-Israel subversives, and so forth

I'm in favor of US withdrawal from the Middle East broadly, and for ending the US special relationship with Israel and treating them like any other democracy -- friendly, willing to sell weapons to them, but not willing to fight their wars if it's not tangibly in US interests.

But the things you're asking for go beyond what we do for practically any other country. "Banning Israeli visits on American soil"? We don't even do that to China. Do you mean something less extreme by this? And "pruning all areas of government and journalism from pro-Israel subversives" sounds practically like McCarthyism.

The better answer is to just not elect Presidents that make blatantly foolish decisions, and/or those who put Israeli interests above American ones. I don't think Trump was pro Israeli, I think he was just a fool who got overconfident from his Venezuelan adventure and thought it would all be easy this time too. Trump is the problem.

I sort of moshed it together to save time in the explanation, but you're correct -- Netanyahu proposing this plan may end up having very bad long-term implications for Israel by alienating the US, even though it might be better for Netanyahu personally.

Correct, this is basically what I'm saying. Israel made a pitch. Plenty of countries make pitches. It's up to the President to accept or reject them if they are/aren't in US interests. Trump chose incorrectly, but the buck should stop with him. We don't need to blame Jews or even Israel more broadly, though that's what's probably going to happen, which is why I used the term "scapegoat".

Nothing you said here is incorrect, but all of it is explainable by 2 things:

  • Israel is acting like a self-interested country, as any other country would.
  • Jews are overrepresented in the US decision making class, and while some of them are so staunchly pro-Israel nearly to the point of treason, most aren't.

So yes, Netanyahu "convinced" Trump to do this war. But it's clearly in their interest since Iran is a long-term threat to them. The person at fault here is Trump for being convinced to do something obviously risky and against US interests. Other nations leaders' are trying to convince America to do stuff all the time -- that part isn't unusual.

And yes, Jared Kushner is Jewish, but I don't think he had some master plan to lure America into a senseless war.

MAGA didn't always mean "cult of personality around Donald Trump". It's a relatively new phenomenon in the wake of Trump's re-election. MAGAs theoretically had some principles like low immigration and being anti-war. And when a group has principles, it's theoretically possible for an individual to break them.

Wow. This story basically hands a giant bazooka to the anti Semitic wing of the Republican party. MAGA will do anything to shift blame away from Trump. Before this, the MO was the old Good Tsar, Bad Boyars schtick. But now there's a clear scapegoat: It's the (Israeli) Jews' fault.

Nick Fuentes will be eating good it seems.

You're correct that there have been some defections, but even Tucker Carlson has been pulling his punches, going more for the "bad boyars" critiques rather than directly criticizing Trump. And polling has shown that most of the rank-and-file support the war, at least as of a few weeks ago. Self-reported MAGAs were 92% in favor of continuing the war.

Going from a one-shot to something more robust can be problematic because AI will often default to simple dirty solutions, which subsequent prompts double down on. If you plan on building something robust from the ground-up, however, it's very doable with AI over many prompts.