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 -
Killing of Hamas leader 'doesn't help' ceasefire talks, says Biden
Is Israel Deliberately Provoking an Escalation That Might Drag the U.S. Into the Conflict?
Does Netanyahu actually want to drag the US into a much larger war with Iran? Or is he content to strike humiliating blows against them, safe in the knowledge that the US's aegis protects them from massive retaliation, and Iran lacks the ability to pursue more fine-grained responses. Biden certainly doesn't seem to be happy either way, as his response to a wanted terrorist leader being eliminated, in a fairly elegant and collateral-minimizing way, shows.
Lots of stratotankers in the air on flightradar24. Something is happening.
US urges citizens to leave Lebanon on 'any available ticket' https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80xxeqel5po seems like something is close to kicking off
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Putting the ball in Iran's court is in fact, a very safe move, because Israel has provoked Iran countless times and Iran has never done anything significant. Especially since the alternative would be killing this guy in Qatar - a country that has relations with Israel. Israel has for once made the responsible choice by choosing to piss off an existing adversary that already hates them, and to respect a nation that is working towards normal relations.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems to me to be an incorrect frame. Surely he doesn't really want a large war with Iran, precisely because that would be the inflection point at which their "aegis" (and exaggeration IMO) of the US is likely to break down. Just as with Ukraine, the main value proposition of supporting Israel is that no American blood need be spilt, and particularly with Israel (less so for Ukraine, but still mostly so) its super cheap for the amount of threat they absorb.
Now, some on the left don't particularly like the Israel alliance because they sympathize with Palestinians, or others have an Iran fetish. But, almost all of the Right and most of the center left agree with this general value proposition. But more of the left is slowly getting upset about it because the Hamas caucus is increasing in size on that side of the aisle and is making threats (IMO not credible ones) to not vote straight Democrat in the next election.
No American blood need be spilt in conflict with Iran? Why would it need to be even if we let Israel get steam rolled? Does Iran have ambitions in the Americas? If it's about oil and imperialism than plenty of American blood has already been spilt in the ME and Israel was less helpful than Europe.
Yes. An Iran with the ability to do so would be meddling in western hemisphere geopolitics; they already do a little bit with backing anti-American regimes(granted, their support to Cuba doesn’t amount to much).
More options
Context Copy link
Why would it when Iran is focused on harassing Israel and its other neighbors? A full scale war in the ME between the two is much more likely to draw in the US, which will eventually generate a backlash and possibly cause the US-Israel alliance to break down
There is the problem then of, either a mass refugee crisis or another holocaust-level-genocide. America will get dragged into that methinks.
Yes. A consistent problem with left of center perspectives on ME policy is mistaking Islamic countries' incompetence with lack of ambition. If they had the means Iran and their proxies would roll into Tel Aviv, kill 7 million Jews, and then be onto southern Europe, then Northern and then they'd start thinking about crossing the sea.
I mean, I wish it was about oil an imperialism. Its actually about civilizational conflict, and you might have noticed that Israel is conducting a 60 year+ defensive war on that front while being mostly on our side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
None of that is really practical, though. In practice both the Democrats and the Republicans support Israel over Hamas for obvious reasons. Left-wing support for Hamas is just an electoral liability for the Democrats, not a real reason for them to actually support Hamas (which would be a much worse liability). The reason is exactly as you say: The support is cheap relative to how much threat they absorb. It's better that someone else be the canary in the coal mine. It's better that someone else take the missile attacks so that you can test your missile defense technology from thousands of miles away.
Also, in general, the American electorate is against organizations that are explicitly anti-America and/or have called for terrorist attacks against America and/or have literally murdered Americans out of sheer anti-American hatred.
No one who has any serious engagement with American foreign policy could possibly be pro-Hamas, because Hamas is anti-America. You can't sit in the Situation Room, get a briefing from the top brass, and then express your support for an organization that wants you, personally, the President of the United States, to be murdered, and is only held back from literally murdering you by the strength of your bodyguards and intelligence agencies. At some point your self-preservation instincts kick in and you realize that rhetoric can only go so far.
I would say that being anti-American is a core tenet of a small, but influential, segment of the American foreign policy establishment.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and so is Iran. But the progressives are pro-both anyway, seeing their hostility towards America as the result of American foreign policy failures that we could fix by throwing Israel to the wolves. As we see in this thread, that particular view is shared with the dissident right and others
And this is why serious progressives either tone down their foreign policy views or lose their elections.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am armchair general and know nothing of war. Keep that in mind.
Larger war with Iran is impossible I think without Iran really pissing off the US. And that means nuclear tests or 9/11 style attack. The country is too big, too much coastline from which to fire on US ships, too much mountains. Teheran is far away, tucked near mountains, and there are limited ways to resupply. Also it is not a complete desert like Iraq so guerilla warfare will be way nastier. And Iran is a bit more disperse that Iraq and Afghanistan.
Without risking american lives - only bombing and missile campaign is possible, and destruction of the coastal facilities in the gulf.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Browne-8/publication/277020426/figure/fig1/AS:294521754669056@1447230866774/Topographic-map-of-Iran-shows-various-physiographic-regions-source-wwwworldofmapsnet.png
here is topological map of Iran. Looks quite unpleasant. Not as bad as Afghanistan, but at least there you had a somewhat easy and cheap supply road trough Pakistan. Here - Turkmenistan won't help, Afghanistan is closed, from pakistan - it seems you can bring supplies to Chabnar - but you would have conquered that on first turn anyway. Turkey will probably assist half assedly - but once again mountain passes. The kurds will gladly help - but the mountain passes once again rear their ugly head.
And to get everything going you need quite some time - so it will be probably after the inauguration of the next POTUS
But Israel wouldn't mind couple of US missile strikes on Iran soil. And of course any strikes in support of Israel will cost some votes and gain some. I think we are far away from everything 2024 has in store for us.
Nobody wants to mount a ground invasion of Iran because the Iranians have a large military with a great deal of ideological commitment (unlike Saddam).
However, bombing Iran’s oil industry into the Stone Age is pretty doable. Iran’s navy and Air Force would get wrecked very quickly.
What’s tricky is that Iran learned from Iraq and Syria and built their nuclear facilities inside mountains. So there’s no way to destroy the program without boots on the ground.
I don’t know what contingency plans Israel has for enforcing their red line that Iran cannot achieve a nuclear weapon.
Well, I don't know all of them either, but I assume one of them is "pre-emptively nuke Iran".
More options
Context Copy link
This, mostly. It's worth mentioning that the US has invested in bunker busters for the last 15 years almost specifically for this reason, but chances of wiping out all nuclear infrastructure dipped significantly in the last 7-8 years -- it used to be doable, even likely, but most people in the know now believe it to be highly unlikely to be fully successful. Plans for doing it still exist and are updated every once in a while, but at the moment just targeted attacks of medium to high (but not total) effectiveness is still seen as sufficient deterrence. Additionally, the US Navy is still powerful enough to meaningfully set back their ambitions to eventually have some degree of control over not just the nearby gulf but also the larger part of the Indian Ocean that Suez Canal sea trade routes traverse. So conventional conflict would still be quite bad for Iran, no invasion necessary. Air forces, naval forces, and oil facilities all take a long time and a lot of resources to rebuild and believe me, the US Navy (overstretched as they are) are nonetheless capable of sinking quite a few oil tankers. We also have bases/base space VERY close to Iran, in Qatar and the UAE for example, which if you look at the map are like right there.
Don't get me wrong, Iran absolutely HATES this feeling of powerlessness, but if you look carefully they are still pragmatists in the things that count. See for example the Suleimani reprisal, which is about as direct as they would ever be short of war.
Don’t confuse Iran’s lack of effectiveness with the intent to be pragmatic.
They have the intent to assassinate Trump and a whole list of other people they blame for the Soleimani strike.
And if their missile attack had killed Americans in Iraq, Trump would have responded in kind and we don’t know how that escalatory cycle would have gone. (Iran believes they did kill troops, so they think they got one over on Trump.)
I personally think that the Trump assassination plan was one born more of smaller radical elements within an often emboldened and somewhat independent IRGC rather than anything central, so although we heard about the plan I don't really put high chances on them going through with it even if we hadn't figured it out/his security hadn't been increased. Their intentions are still absolutely pragmatic on the whole.
Of course we do know that Trump was literally 5 or 10 minutes away from ordering a larger retaliatory strike against Iran that would have had a direct military death toll of at least a dozen, so yeah the potential for escalation is still there, though I still think neither side truly wants that kind of thing, those sorts of misplaced judgements just happen in military and foreign high-stakes stuff. I do think that in that event, a dozen or more direct military deaths, they would feel obligated, against their better judgement, to actually kill some Americans. Don't mistake their public claims that they killed Americans for an actual belief -- they deliberately say stuff like that to pacify their own populace (and even internal elements) into thinking they weren't as weak as they were (for example claiming they did more damage than they actually did in the 300-odd missile strike at Israel the other month, national TV was showing unrelated footage from something else in order to give the impression that their strike did something, allowing the face-saving measure of saying "ok retaliation complete" and claiming victory).
Although the IRGC is probably more genuinely angry about Soleimani, overriding pragmatism even, though they have a lot of leeway they still aren't actually in charge. The actual leadership, Khomeini for example, probably know that Soleimani was kind of asking for it and that although they obviously weren't happy, still viewed him as at least somewhat a "fair" target. Because intelligence was highly specific that he had planned, and continued to plan, stuff that was directly leading to US deaths in Iraq and elsewhere.
Well you’re wrong.
The IRGC’s whole damn bit is doing what the Supreme Leader wants.
The kill list for US officials involved with the Soleimani strike is not some rogue faction’s idea.
You have no idea how to model the motivations and machinations of the Iranian regime. Khamenei loved Soleimani. Soleimani was carrying out the express wishes of the Supreme Leader in his operations.
They were quite surprised about Soleimani’s death. That was a big change for the US to do that.
The Iranians are quite often high on their own supply and don’t just consciously use lies to placate their dumb citizens (as the Russians do). They are actually religious fanatics. They aren’t insane, but they are not nearly as rational as many in the West want to believe and they really do have ideological commitments we find pretty mind boggling. (For instance, a devotion to destroying the state of Israel.)
There is a very high chance the Iranians stupidly try a major attack (for the death of a Hamas leader, not an Iranian, no less), and then Israel responds a lot stronger than they ever have before. I don’t think Israel is bluffing about their intended response and I don’t think they’ll let Biden restrain them.
Common sense would lead the Iranians to back off any large scale military attacks and merely try more of an in kind response like assassinating a Jew somewhere, but their egos and rhetoric is making it clear they want to do more.
Hopefully, the wiser more risk-aware advisors to Khamenei win the day.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not sure. Gas prices are already a contentious issue in the USA, and taking a good chunk of oil (about 10% per Google) would spike gas prices by several dollars which would be a political crisis.
Well sure, war has consequences.
Consider that it might be Israel doing it and not the US. If Iran conducts a major missile/drone attack on Israel and does real damage then Israel has said they’re going to take the gloves off. I believe them.
I don’t think the US would attack non-mil infra unless Iran picked a fight with us directly and did some real damage.
Iran would be a failed state pretty quickly if its oil revenue dried up and Israel can destroy that infrastructure from the air. I’m not sure exactly how many strikes it would take to say eliminate half of Iran’s oil output for ~months+, but oil fields, refineries, and pipelines are easy targets that can’t really be hardened.
Of course, the more pressing threat for Israel is if they need to invade Lebanon to attack Hezbollah and its missile sites, in which case they’d be devoting the vast majority of their air power to that operation.
What would be the Israeli game plan for invading Lebanon, I’m genuinely curious?
Like Hezbollah is more than competent enough to assume they’ll take 40% of the country back after Israel leaves. They’ve survived Israeli occupation before. You’d have to get rid of the Shia population that provides their demographic base somehow, and I guess Syria and Iraq might be far enough away for comfort but you’ve gotta assume that Hezbollah will just set up shop again.
I’m not saying Israel won’t regard this as a future problem. But, well, they’re surely aware that a) Hezbollah is too entrenched in Lebanese society to get rid of without restructuring that society and b) lebanon’s population mostly hates them and so won’t cooperate in that endeavor.
Israel’s game plan in the event of war with Hezbollah is to attack as many facilities and kill as many leaders and combatants as they can from the air and then see if they can prop up anyone else in Lebanon who isn’t Hezbollah at that point. If they can’t, they’ll leave and the cycle will repeat itself.
But yes, the general reality that the Sunnis are deeply internally divided grifters, the Christians are all lazy kleptocrats with French passports who want to make their bag and retire to Paris / the South of France and the Shias are the only ones with the discipline and will to make a play for the actual country remains the case. Lebanon lurches from crisis to crisis, but as long as Hezbollah continues to be well-funded by Iranian oil money it has enough funds to buy large amounts of support (which is often more financial than ideological when it comes to many Lebanese, even Shiites).
More options
Context Copy link
Well the main goal would be to wreck Hezbollah.
No idea how they would decide whether to occupy southern Lebanon again.
I’m guessing they wouldn’t opt for an occupation. Gaza is going to be enough of a problem.
But yeah, overall Israel knows it can’t take out Hezbollah the way it can Hamas.
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
Im sorry but the people calling this an "escalation" have no clue what they're talking about.
The reason the upper leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Et Al. Take up residence in places like Qatar, Egypt, and France is that they know they'll be relatively safe there because the Israelis have good reasons to actually care what those countries think of them, and thus avoid doing anything too overt.
Iran enjoys no such protection by virtue of already being in a de-facto state of war with Isreal. Iran launches missile and drone strikes into Isreal and Isreal retaliates by assassinating a some scientist or dignitary or bombing an airfield. That's not escalation thats been the status quo for over a decade.
Wait, what? France? I haven't heard about that.
There was a whole thing back in the late 00s/early 10s over Hezbollah leaders vacationing and doing speaking engagements in France due to so many Lebanese holding dual citizenship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From the linked article
Is this true? My impression was that Hamas leaders were mostly staying in Qatar, where Israel would be very unwilling to try an assassination attempt.
I've seen various takes on Twitter pointing out how much Israel has escalated recently since Netanyahu's meeting with Harris. It seems very possible he realised/had confirmed that her administration would be much less friendly than Biden's, and that the time to try and draw the US in was now.
but why not assassinate in Qatar? qatar is sorta isolated in the Gulf - saudi/uae etc doesnt like qatar. Only thing i can think of that shields qatar is some nebulous relationship with USA, but even that doesnt feel very concrete
Because Qatar is accepted by the US as a diplomatic neutral ground for peace negotiations with various unsavory factions (including Hamas, the Taliban etc) on the proviso that all sides respect that no violence actually happens there.
In other words Qatar is the Continental Hotel of the Middle East.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Qatar was one of the first Arab nations to start normalizing thier relations with Isreal back in the 90s. Unlike those of Iran or Syria, Qatari diplomatic opinion actually carries some whieght with the Isreali government.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But everyone expects Trump to be the next president, and he's very pro-Israel.
Harris seems to be polling quite significantly better than Biden. Nate Silver is giving her close to 50%. It could be Netanyahu felt the way the wind was starting to blow and felt that waiting until after the election would risk losing the chance to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak.
Question is how much of it is honeymoon v reality. Trump negatives are pretty baked in. Are Harris’ negatives? Dems were smart to wait until 100 days (or maybe even 50) to make her the nominee. The negatives might not be baked in by the time election comes around.
Another reason why what the Dems did was wrong.
The negatives will definitely show up, give it approximately two to three weeks until she has her first major accusation or oppo thing the GOP breaks (or possibly a verbal slip that goes viral), and about four to six weeks for people to start to pay attention to the vibe her speeches are giving. And at some point there will be a debate which will make an impact. And the state of the economy around late September/October will also play a big role. Trump's team mostly fumbled their first big chance to set the impressions, but they will have others. Chris LaCivita is a smart cookie, so they will eventually settle on a theme or line that is at least decent, but it's going to be at least a month before the GOP figures out some messaging discipline.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't expect we'll see the negatives. Harris will be run as "generic Democrat" and just slide into office, her policy positions barely even being mentioned in the media until after the election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say it's more of a coin toss, maybe slightly leaning Trump. That's what prediction markets indicate too.
More options
Context Copy link
Hedging bets, perhaps, or maybe wanting a repeat of the hostage crisis that got Reagan elected?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your impression is correct. Haniyeh being in Iran presented an opportunity, since Iran is already an enemy state.
More options
Context Copy link
The time to try and draw the US into a war with Iran was decades ago. It strikes me as a little late now.
Today is still better than tomorrow. I have very low confidence that the US can really “win” in a war against Iran if winning is defined as occupying Tehran and installing a new regime. But they can totally break the country until Israel doesn’t have to worry about it just like how it doesn’t worry about Saddam or Syria anymore. Albeit at a very very high cost. To the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link