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 -
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.
Vietnam isn’t a great power. Always a vassal. This is just everything good just bend the knee to America and ignores that other countries have goals and the US interferes with them.
To be blunt, I think you’re demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Vietnam is a medium power next to an ambitious major power they fought a war with not that long ago. They have mellowed on their ideology and so relations with the US, a former foe, help them economically and geopolitically to counter China.
Iran is also a medium power, though they do not have a border with a major threat/rival since 2003. Unlike Vietnam, they do have strong ideological foundations that drive their foreign policy to be ant-Israel and anti-US and anti-Sunni, much to the detriment of their economy. If Iran were 50% saner, they would be much more powerful.
North Korea is another example. They have a border with a major protector. They have some strange ideology that boils down to wanting all of Korea, which the US stands in the way of. North Korea could decide to calm down on its territorial ambitions and then the US would have no reason to strongly oppose them.
Vietnam and South Korea seek relations with the US to achieve their goals to counter the threats they face. As does Israel and a host of other countries.
Vietnam and the US let bygones be bygones within living memory of a war that was horrendous in particular for the people of Vietnam.
Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.
“Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.”
I agree with this. The US interferes with Iran’s historical place as the dominant Middle East hegemon. Vietnam and the US have mutual interests. Opposing Chinese dominance. Iran and the US have opposite interests since the US backs the Saudis as regional hegemon. So yes I agree if the Iranians just fell inline and realized they had less oil than the Saudis and accepted second rate status in their region then all would be good. This is like saying the US would just play nice if Russia was picking the governments of Canada and Mexico and the Bahamas and wouldn’t be backing military proxies to stress Russian military assets in the region.
Why did US relations with Iran change in 1979?
The Shah was ambitious. He wanted oil money. He didn’t want to be second fiddle to the Saudis.
Also it’s funny you’re going on about Iran’s historical hegemon status as if the Arabs and the Turks don’t have the same damn history (and both bested the Persians after the rise of Islam).
You’re so monomaniacally over focused on oil with apparently zero actual regional awareness to realize that Iran borders two significant powers—Turkey and Pakistan—that do not owe their status to oil wealth. Iran is a large country that ought to have a diversified economy.
If Iran had a competent government and stopped being a pariah state then in would massively outclass Saudi economically and militarily due to a larger population and a better history of education and industry.
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
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.
Israel is a U.S. proxy. US has threatened Iran multiple times. Therefore, Israel is a proper target on Western influence.
Israel could just give up being a U.S. proxy but they aren’t going to do that.
This honestly just gets back to who did what bad first. The US has interfered with Iran and directly challenged their sovereignty. Now we cry when they fight back?
Iran hates Israel completely independent of their “US proxy” status.
If tomorrow all US aid/support to Israel ended then that would slightly decrease Iran’s hate for the Great Satan.
But the Little Satan is hated because Iran does not recognize the state of Israel and desires Jewish control of the Holy Land to end, based on religious ideology.
So you almost have things completely backwards.
We tend not to cry so much as punch Iran in the face when they “fight back.”
If they stopped being aggressive against us and our allies, America would love to have Iran turn into say another Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Jordan or (even) Pakistan. But the mullahs are religious lunatics and that underlies their foreign policy against their Arab/Sunni neighbors, Israel, and the US.
Can you define “Iran hates Israel complete independent of Israel status as a U.S. Proxy”
I disagree with this. But I don’t know what it means. Whose Iran?
If Israel could offer Iran domination of Saudi Arabia and status as regional hegemon over the Arabs especially Saudi Arabia then Israel and Iran would be besties.
This is really just oil politics as it’s driving force. US backs Saudis because they have more oil than Iran. This allows Saudis to be the strongest regional power. Iranians don’t like Arabs and realistically think they’re sand negros. If Iran had more oil than the Arabs the US would have long ago found a way to be besties with Iran and made them the regional hegemon over the Arabs. But they don’t. Oil explains the dividing lines in this region of the world a lot more than Muslims don’t like Jews.
I’m sorry are you just unaware of Iran’s view of the “Zionist regime” here?
“Whose Iran?”
Khomeini’s. Khamenei’s. The IRGC’s. The MOIS’s.
The Iranians hold it against the US that we support the Zionists—I think it’s their single biggest issue. Their aggression toward the Zionists is pure.
Iran does not recognize Israel as a state. What fantasy land are you operating in where Israel helping Iran dominate the Arabs is within the realm of possibility?
“This is really just oil politics.”
No, no it very much isn’t. That’s certainly a relevant factor, but Iran would make a lot more oil money if it stopped wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
If you believe Persians think Arabs are sand negros, what in the fuck do you think they consider Jews to be? Spoiler: it’s worse.
“Oil explains the dividing lines in this region of the world a lot more than Muslims don’t like Jews.”
You are simply ignorant of reality here, in particular the nature of the Iranian regime. You can go read the Supreme Leader’s X feed for a bit and you might learn a lot.
Your own view betrays this actually. Why do you think Israel partners with the Arabs, particularly considering it was these countries it has to fight to come and stay in existence for the first 30 years?
In 1979 did Israelis wake up and go “well fuck Iran, let’s partner with the Arabs because of oil politics”?
No.
What changed between 1948 and 1979+ is that Israel was able to normalize relations with its Arab foes (even if the man on the street really hates Israel) and Iran transformed from a basically secular, West-aligned monarchy into a theocracy where the government opposes the existence of Israel as a matter of faith and policy.
The US would fucking love it if Iran woke up tomorrow and became like say Pakistan: kind of a dumpster fire but not a direct threat to an entire region where a significant portion of the world’s energy supply resides. Israel would love for Iran to stop working towards its destruction.
Iran could choose peace. Israel et al can’t choose to ignore that Iran does not want peace.
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