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 -
90 million poor Iranian people are not an asset. They are a liability. Zergrush is not a viable strategy in the 21st century. If Israel and Iran shared a land border it might be different, but only because the millions of Iranian casualties would affect public opinion.
Israel has just show that Iranian missiles and drones are essentially worthless. Yeah, if they launched their entire arsenal in one night, they'd do some damage. But they wouldn't affect warfighting ability.
I didn't say this. No one is saying this. What I am saying is that Iran is powerless to hurt Israel directly. I'll go further. Iran is also powerless to stop Israel from flying over it and bombing whatever it wants. The reason that the U.S. "failed" in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it was trying to invade countries and make those countries like them. This is impossible. On the other hand, killing people is easy. Unless you're Iran of course.
A lesson from the Ukraine war is that highly modern weapons which give countries like israel a technological edge get smashed up under large conventional operations which devolve into trench warfare in which quantity has a quality all its own.
Iran doesn’t have the logistics to mobilize large groups of soldiers to the front or to arm, equip, or feed them. It’s a mythical man month problem. Mobilizing more soldiers would actually lead to worse outcomes.
Iran probably doesn’t have the ability to wage a large conventional war on the other side of multiple hostile countries in the least stable region on earth. That’s true. But if troops were crossing the Iranian border, Iran’s millions of conscripts defending itself and operating in nearby hostile countries would be adequately fed and supplied absent a total collapse of Iranian war fighting ability- Iran is able to supply more limited forces quite well on a much longer and more difficult logistical tether and their defense establishment legitimately looks more capable than in the 80s, when starvation was still not the main challenge facing millions of Iranian conscripts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It was already known by people who closely follow modern war that Iran's missiles and drones have very limited ability to impact Israel's war-fighting capability. I'm not even that much of a war nerd, but I knew it. What happened today is not news in that sense. It changes little about what people who closely observe military stuff think about Iran's military capabilities.
Iran's missiles and drones do, however, have the power to close the Persian Gulf down for a long time if Iran wanted to. They also could severely hurt Saudi Arabia's oil producing capability.
These recent back-and-forth airstrikes are a side show anyway. The key thing for the Iranians is, or at least should be, to build a nuclear deterrent as soon as possible. From what I understand, they are pretty close to it. To the point that I'm actually surprised that they risked destabilizing the status quo by retaliating for the Israeli strike against their leaders in Syria. The status quo actually favors Iran because Westerners are increasingly turning against Israel and have not been doing anything directly to slow the Iranian nuclear program. On the other hand, I think that today's retaliatory strike is unlikely to expand into a full-blown conflict, and the Iranians know this, so it changes little. Today's strike will also do almost nothing to alter Westerners' opinions about which side they want to win, since it is clearly a limited military retaliation for the Israeli strike in Syria.
"missiles and drones" is really not a useful category. The drones they're using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136, are propeller-driven and move at 115MPH at low altitude. Very, very easy to shoot down, at least when you have the resources of several advanced nations and days of advance notice. They are, however, being used against Ukraine to deadly effect.
The real danger is the ballistic missiles. Unclear how many of them were launched here, but it doesn't seem to be very many. Those are much larger, they move at several thousand MPH and at a much higher altitude. Much harder to intercept. It does seem like Israel was able to intercept one: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1779312589039694002 . But Iran has over 3000. If they launched all of them all at once, that would be a very deadly threat that even the US would not be able to stop. this reply also goes to @jeroboam because I really think you're underestimating the danger of Iran. This was not an all-out attack by them. This was a minimal attack, to make a show of force but also show restraint.
I agree, but even if Iran launched every single asset that they have, I think that while it would kill many people, it would not knock Israel's military out of war-fighting shape. And that's even before accounting for the fact that it would do even less to hinder the US' war-fighting capability. Ukraine shows that a military that is being heavily supported by the West can endure two years of war against an opponent that has a very large arsenal of missiles, including ones that are better than anything Iran has. Granted, Ukraine is much larger than Israel, but on the other hand the US would have no reason to limit its direct help to Israel as much as it limits its direct help to Ukraine, since Iran does not have nuclear weapons. I hope that soon they will have nuclear weapons, but for now they do not.
It was definitely a limited attack. A full attack would have involved more missiles and drones, and almost certainly would have also included Hezbollah launching an attack.
Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?
Fundamentally it is because I root against the US/Israel team, not for rational reasons but because I just do.
But tangentially, Iran having nukes would at least end all anti-Iranian hopes of destroying the current Iran regime, which I hope might add some much-needed cooling to the heat of the current geopolitical situation there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I agree with most of this. Iran's actions demonstrate great military weakness and lack of desire to expand the conflict. But I'm not sure everyone knows this. I just responded to a comment that argued the opposite in fact. I'd argue the consensus is Iran is a true regional power.
Probably, but as this isn't 1990 it matters a lot less. They'll just be hurting themselves. The U.S. is the world's largest oil producer and there are large reserves in South America waiting to be developed. Oil trades at $85/barrel, down 60% from 2008 levels in inflation-adjusted terms. Lots of wiggle-room there.
Yes. That's the meat. Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear capability? It will be good for the world if they do. Terrorists should not have nukes.
Yep, many people didn't know it of course. But people who even half-seriously follow modern war without being blinded by some sort of bias knew it.
Sure, but having the Persian Gulf closed down for months would still be a giant shit show for the world economy. And probably not good for the Democratic Party in an election year given that in today's US political situation, there is unlikely to be some sort of "rally around the flag" effect as a result of any war that didn't start with the US getting directly attacked, and the Democratic Party base is divided about Israel to begin with.
This is a matter of preference. Personally, I am in favor of Iran getting nukes because I do not wish them to be continually threatened by Israel and the US. The "world" would largely be unaffected. It's not like if Iran gets nukes, they are going to nuke Zimbabwe or Thailand or something. In fact, even if they got nukes, given the reality of mutually assured destruction they almost certainly would not even nuke Israel or any US assets.
I think it's pretty well-accepted that an Iranian nuclear capability would likely result in a number of regional counter-moves, such as:
The regional Sunni Arab states may then perceive a much more serious threat from Iran. They would likely seek to either build their own nuclear weapons or come explicitly under the protection of one of the existing nuclear powers. We're talking Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Oman, Quatar, Yemen, Egypt, and Jordan. Iraq and Syria aren't usually seen as Sunni-aligned, but they may not necessarily take such a thing lying down either.
Israel has long maintained a policy of "nuclear ambiguity", refusing to explicitly confirm that they do have a nuclear arsenal. If Iran does openly have a nuclear arsenal, I would think Israel would change this policy.
It's also the status quo of nuclear geopolitics that nuclear powers are not allowed to attack or threaten non-nuclear powers with nuclear weapons. You can attack, invade, and conquer with conventional weapons, but nothing nuclear. Once you have your own nuclear weapons though, you're now fair game for other nuclear powers to more directly threaten.
So, maybe Israel and Iran openly pointing nuclear ballistic missiles at each other? Not sure if that's a good thing. At least they might both cool their jets a little with the constant proxy wars.
Maybe American nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia? It's possible. There's precedent in America defending them from Saddam's invasion, and the Saudis don't seem terribly interested in manufacturing their own high-tech weapons. Or maybe they would ally with an openly-nuclear Israel? Both don't sound very likely now, but it's hard to see the Saudis just sitting idly by with an nuclear-armed Iran right across the Persian Gulf.
I am fine with all of those outcomes, including the Saudis building nukes. I think this almost certainly, none of the sides involved would actually use their nukes, but Iran having nukes would at least end all anti-Iranian hopes of destroying the current Iran regime, which I hope might add some much-needed cooling to the heat of the current geopolitical situation there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the smallest nation or group that you would like to be armed with nukes. Iran is a state supporter of terrorism with a population of 90 million.
Presumably, Saudi Arabia or Japan having nukes is a much smaller threat so I assume you are cool with them. Let's go smaller.
Taiwan?
Qatar?
Cuba?
Should Catalonia have nukes?
How about Texas?
Hawaii?
The NRA?
Antifa?
The KKK?
Can I get a nuke? I mean, mutually assured destruction if I use it right.
Iran is about the LAST country that should have nukes.
Saudi Arabia and Japan don’t have nukes because they don’t want them badly enough(both of them have plans to obtain nukes very, very fast). Taiwan is a bit of a longer stretch, but they’re also a technologically advanced, wealthy, and stable country with a single strategic threat- nukes probably make sense as a strategy there.
Catalonia seems less stable because it has an active secession movement in political conflict with the national government. Texas having nukes probably doesn’t change anything, because Greg Abbott is not leaving power any time soon and prefers to take advantage of the Biden admin’s unpopularity among the no rankers to accomplish his political goals in ongoing conflict with the federal government, although 50% of the US nuclear arsenal is sitting in a warehouse in Texas run by contractors that don’t inspire much confidence, so something that’s a big enough space whale to make Abbott really want nuclear weapons probably just introduces a delay before he gets them, kinda like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Cuba is a shithole whose hobby is supporting terrorism in other countries and impoverishing its own people, but the kinds of activities nukes deter are ones it faces functionally no risk of anyways. Qatar probably doesn’t want nukes; it seems to benefit from its strategic neutrality.
More options
Context Copy link
As I said, this is a preference. I am not going to try to justify it rationally or through moral arguments, and I would fail even if I tried. As a spectator, I am against team US/Israel. So I want their enemies to have nukes.
I want myself and those I root for to have nukes, that's about all there is to it as far as I am concerned.
At the same time, I am not a sociopath. I am fine with the US having nukes in order to actually defend itself. But I want others to also be able to defend themselves. Also, I don't actually like Iran. I hate their social conservatism and authoritarianism. I only like them insofar as they are a thorn in the US and Israel's sides. In any case, US/Israeli attacks on Iran have done nothing to actually make Iran less conservative or authoritarian, so I see no point in rooting for team US/Israel even in order to help Iran's people.
I don't want Iran to actually nuke anyone, but I want them to be able to deter team US/Israel. Which, if they got nukes, is what I think would almost certainly happen. They might be a bit crazy over there in Tehran, but if so then not much more than the average politician, and I don't think they want to engage in mutually assured destruction. As this latest round of very limited escalation actually shows very well.
I find moral arguments in geopolitics to be pretty pointless in general, and they rarely go anywhere. And very often they just disguise irrational tribal preferences anyway, even when the people engaging in them do not realize it. I am more interested in talking about power and capabilities.
You have things remarkably backwards.
The US and Israel only attack Iran because since 1979 Iran has been controlled by a theocracy that considers the US and Israel to be, unironically, “Big and Little Satan.”
Iran having nukes would be massively destabilizing to the region even if you take Israel out of the equation. Iranian ideology isn’t kind to basically any of its neighbors.
I have no idea what your preferred worldview is beyond disliking the US and Israel, but don’t pretend Iran is some poor oppressed country that needs to defend itself when it is the aggressor.
I am not pretending that Iran is just "some poor oppressed country". But it is also not simply some unprovoked aggressor. There has been a long history of violence from both sides. The West's conflict with Iran predates 1979. For example, you could trace it back to the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.
I promise you that Iranian foreign policy against Israel in particular and the West in general is not directly based upon what happened in 1941 during WWII and under Reza Shah.
In 1979 a completely new regime took over. One that was anti-West instead of pro-West as the Shah had been. Any legitimate grievances Iran has against the West are massively overshadowed by the ideology of the mullahs, particularly their anti-Israel stance. Iran had every reason to be pissed about the support for Saddam (though the US ended up supporting both sides, famously), but overall they have explicitly chosen to be the antagonist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And why did we the theocracy take power in 1979? I would have to reread my history for specifics but it’s something something awful oil deals with the west where Iran got none of the money. Then Iraq invaded. A little over ten years after that ended America invaded Iraq and puts a new hostile to Iran government in power. George Bush says something about Iran being evil and being that he just invaded Iraq it doesn’t sound like Iran itself is that secure.
This has a whole lot of who did what bad to who first in it. Regardless the west has chosen a path to not like Iran and threaten them and Iranian response has been funding proxy wars all over the place.
Iran can’t look at the Middle East or the world and just assume they get territorial integrity. Not when the West invaded Iraq and broke Syria.
It’s far too broad of a brush to say Iran is the aggressor. Israel-Iran is a proxy war in the Saudi-Iran and US-Iran proxy wars.
I guess you could say Iran bad because Islam bad and theocracy is bad (I am not against theocracy) and America is good because Democracy is good and well I’m bored and want to culture war some but also Pride flags are good. But blaming Iran as the aggressor seems factually false.
As a counter example, look at Vietnam.
The US/West did way, way worse things to Vietnam than we ever did to Iran, and vice versa. But now we are on pretty friendly terms.
If Vietnam acted like Iran or North Korea by being a perpetual threat to the US and its allies then it would still be considered an enemy.
More options
Context Copy link
So even if I grant you the most justifiable account of the 1979 revolution, you gotta keep some things in mind.
Even if the Shah was bad and the West was at fault, the theocrats took over the whole movement and cast out their allies.
Israel had, to my knowledge, nothing to do with whatever crimes the West committed.
With respect to Israel and its Arab neighbors (minus Saddam’s Iraq), Iran is obviously the aggressor. This is not controversial and results from Iran’s particular ideology. Even if I grant Iran had reason to hit back against those that supported Saddam, that was a long time ago at this point.
So in 1979 and thereafter Iran consciously chose to make Israel a major enemy, even though Israel had never done anything malicious to Iran. That was ideology driving Iran’s foreign policy, not some justified or necessary response in normal geopolitical terms. Iran is not Arab. It’s nowhere near Jerusalem. But the theocrats feel compelled to violently oppose the existence of Israel.
Also, the US taking out Saddam, Iran’s largest immediate threat, was a massive favor for Iran and it’s hilarious you’re trying to frame it otherwise.
With respect to the US, Iran was also the aggressor because in the opening round they seized our embassy and held hostages. Even if you totally grant they had reason to hate US/British foreign policy for taking advantage of Iran, they could have simply peaceably evicted the US as they overthrew the Shah.
Iran consciously chose the path it has gone down. If Iran stopped trying to attack/dominate its neighbors and others, then Israel and the US would not treat it as the threat it is.
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