@cstross thing is, at this point, for all three participants to suffer losses of force and wealth is going to cause quite limited sadness in most of the rest of the world.
I mean, it is clearly _bad_ and we are all suffering and will suffer more as collateral damage, but to whom better could it happen?
Well, Russia, obvs.
@cstross Mutual ruin is the expected outcome of wars.
The US is the Oil Empire; people who are not in the US tolerated that and the consequent post-war order because it was, by and large and on the whole, beneficial. Open trade, freedom of the seas, all that stuff.
An authoritarian US is not beneficial and the exceptionalism that went into supporting an expectation that the US would not go there is stone dead. Everyone else now wants to end the Oil Empire even without the food security issues.
@cstross My expectation is that the US is going to collapse its economy committing genocide against Iran. Once the US economy goes down, a period of global rearrangement happens, only it's going to be happening in a context of repeated famine as the weather gets more angry than hitherto. (Israel does not survive US collapse.)
I think it's also notable that there is no way out of this that doesn't involve "and a miracle"; none of the better scenarios are plausibly materially possible.
@moz @cstross The US right has been planning on a theocracy for three generations.
They can't give up patriarchal white supremacy and continue to exist; by alternative phrasing, their cultural continuity arises from being free to torture children. Once they are not, they either extirpate whatever functioning social power prevents them from torturing children or their cultural transmission ceases.
I would wish the majority of the US population could get their heads around the problem.
@graydon @moz @cstross I wouldn't say the US was planning on a theocracy for three generations. That seems to misinterpret history.
The alignment with evangelical christians were purely a GOTV effort. Mainstream conservatives never gave a shit about bible thumpers, just like how evangelicals never gave a shit about abortion until they needed a new boogieman to keep the coffers full after segregation was eliminated.
What's happened is that two generations now have been raised on christian nationalist propaganda, and the ones in on the joke have all died off, and so now there are only true believers. The first generation never had any intention of giving power to the nut jobs, but yet here we are, and as long as the line goes up, then it's all good.
@jonathankoren @moz @cstross The US Right that you have now is, as you note, all true believers, and the true believers have been planning this for generations as their numbers have increased.
(If you're not a true believer you presumably observe all the falsified axioms and alter your positions away from the paleo-conservative views of 1970.)
@graydon @jonathankoren @moz @cstross
Also, remember that the USAF were tracking the Evangelical Christians who were deliberately trying to join the regiments that control the USA nuclear weapons.
There were news articles warning about this years ago.
@otolithe @cstross Optimistic.
He's assuming the US will look at the cost of occupying Iran and either not want to do it, realize it can't do it, or try to finesse something, and that this unbearable cost will constrain politics and policy.
He's not looking at the other two obvious alternatives, which are kinetically induced infrastructure collapse and maintaining it for the couple years necessary for 90% population reduction, or the more impatient approach and using nukes.
@cstross At least he displays, as John Kenneth Galbraith called it, the attributes of competence
@cstross To quote the Oracle at Delphi, "if you invade, you will destroy a great empire".
About 55 BCE, IIRC. But it was in Latin, so Trump wouldn't understand it, at any level.
Great points in the article. This one, for example...
"if Iran wants future presidents not to repeat this war, the precedent they want to set is “attacking Iran is a presidency-ending mistake.” And to do that, well, they need to end a presidency or at least make clear they could have done."
🍿
@elasticsoul @cstross That's definitely a desire, but there's also the serious possibility that Iran can't actually do it.
I mean, you could say the same about Iran wanting to make attacking Iran a prime minister-ending mistake, but here we are after numerous Israeli attacks on Iran over the years, and none of them ended Netanyahu's reign.
I see this as quintessentially a geopolitics "game". Iran has the advantage mainly because EVERYONE blames Trump (and Netanyahu) for all this.
This is
@elasticsoul @cstross compounded by Trump going out of his way to insult other countries and their leaders, making it politically impossible for them to help him as begged.
And it is furthermore compounded by Trump going out of his way to display pathetic weakness, by unilaterally lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for absolutely nothing.
So, even if Iran can't do anything to seriously end Trump's presidency, Trump's firehose stream of self-owns gives them every incentive to keep on taking
@elasticsoul @cstross wins, and no incentive to "play ball" with Trump's desperate begging for negotiations he pathetically lies about happening.
In the meantime, all this _actual_ winning is helping the Iranian regime consolidate power internally.