This is the thirtieth weekly thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or IR history. I usually start off with coverage of some current events from a mix of countries I follow personally and countries I think the forum lives in or might be interested in. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Hasn’t Iran pledged to defend the territorial integrity of Armenia proper?
Iran’s relationship with the situation is super tricky. Historically they were allied with Armenia while Azerbaijan bought weapons from Israel. But potentially as much as a quarter of Iran is ethnically Azeri, with a ton of them living right next to the border. A lot of them are really well integrated (people say the Ayatollah may be half Azeri) but there’s also been an issue of growing Azeri nationalism within Iran.
The last President Rouhani made it a major initiative to try to douse those fires, campaigned in Azeri towns a lot, allowed their language to be taught in schools, and reestablished diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan to keep them from fanning the flames of Turkish pan nationalism right over the border. He even switched Iran’s position and formally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.
Iran has a huge vested interest in stability in the region. They still have their historic ties with Armenia and they really don’t want the Zangezur Corridor to be built and unite Azerbaijan and Turkey and cut them off from Armenia. This is all the more pressing because that could jeopardize their access to the north-south transit corridor through the caucuses that they’ve heavily invested in (the highway section in Armenia is being built by Iranian companies). At the same time, Iran is super not happy about Armenia’s deepening ties with the US or the presence of US troops in the area or American influence over the outcome.
So Iran has said “they won’t tolerate any border changes”. But all the same constraints that forced them to make nice with Azerbaijan are still at play, so it’s hard to say exactly how free they have to intervene. With the conflict in Israel keeping up their focus and repeated clashes between their proxies in Iraq and the US, I also imagine they really don’t want another conflict to potentially get wrapped up in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link