Adrift in the Bi-Polar World
Notes from the Republic of the Excluded Middle
Yesterday’s strike by the US military on three key nuclear sites sent shock waves far beyond the Iranian desert where the bombs and missiles landed. News of the attack came as the culmination of intense and often bitter debate that raged since June 13, when Israel launched the attacks that opened the current round of fighting. The implications and consequences of yesterday’s strike are far from clear. However, the entire affair has in my opinion highlighted a baleful feature of public discourse today, one that is endemic to the discussion of nearly every issue of national significance. We can with some justice refer to ourselves as The Republic of the Excluded Middle.
The logical fallacy variously referred to as the Excluded Middle or False Dilemma or False Dichotomy can be summarized as1
The error that occurs when an argument presents a situation as if there are only two options, often extreme or opposite, while ignoring other possible alternatives.To illustrate this assertion, let me present two propositions, each of which I believe have widespread (though certainly not universal) support.
The discontinuation of so-called “forever wars” is strongly desired by a large portion of the American public. It was a major component of the platform on which Donald Trump was elected, and many non-Trump voters oppose the interventionism and adventurism that have lately characterized US foreign policy.
The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran is highly undesirable. The current regime has been a destabilizing force in a critical and volatile region for decades, and a curtailment of their power would serve US interests.
These propositions are not mutually exclusive, but they are clearly in mutual tension. To the extent that both are accepted, the main point of public discourse and argument should occur in their intersection. Are there actions that may further the objective of curtailing Iran’s power that do not amount to abandoning President Trump’s campaign promise to stop the instigation of forever wars? Is it possible to identify a course of action with respect to Iran that sufficiently manages the risk of descending a slippery slope to World War III? In what ways is the current situation like and unlike the situations that pertained in previous instances wherein the US was drawn into extended or open-ended military commitments?
It may be that the answer to these questions is that the situations are more alike than unlike, we cannot adequately manage the risk, and we have to pick one proposition or the other as the dominant consideration. It’s difficult to say one way or the other, however, because the questions are not being asked, and the discussion is not taking place.2
If you voted for Trump and you now support action against Iran, then you’re a traitor to the cause and probably controlled opposition working for the deep state. If you don’t support action against Iran, then you must be against Israel, and you probably even support the Mullahs. Absent the discussion I called for above, any argument on either side of the issue is in danger of being assigned to one of the two archetypal images that dominate the argument space. Anti-American radicals waving the Iranian flag and crying death to Israel on the one hand, and chest-thumping jingoists advocating American chauvinism and thuggery on the other. Our choices, one may conclude from a survey of legacy and social media, are to either accept a world in which the Iranian regime continues their regional bullying and sooner or later acquires nuclear weapons, or pull the plug on the Long Peace and initiate World War III.
I know I’m not in either of these two groups, and I do not believe that the choices I mentioned above are our only options. But it’s harder to think through the problem because of the sharp bifurcation in public discourse. Bereft of the benefit of observations and analyses from people smarter or better informed than me, I’m left largely to my own devices.
This is no way to run a country. But it’s what we’ve been doing for as long as I can remember, and I’m heartily tired of it.
H/T ChatGPT
There is some discussion of these questions. The problem I’m highlighting is in reference to the dominant treatment of the issue. See this post by Jeff Childers for the presentation of intriguing evidence that the US and Iran may already have identified and agreed on a mutually acceptable response to the crisis that lives in the intersection of the two propositions I suggested: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/bomb-iran-sunday-june-22-2025-c-and/
Thank you for sharing your perspective Mark. I also feel like the false dichotomies that we're presented with so many issues often don't represent how I feel about that issue. You're either a Republican or a Democrat and there's no in between. You're either in favor of this course of action or against it and there's no in between. It's important for the future of our nation, society, families, our own souls, and our culture that we explore options other than those presented to us by the powers that be and more closely align to our own interests and desires.
The Jeff Childers post was interesting to me because of the conversation I had about this yesterday with someone who has worked on the periphery of these issues from his post inside the Pentagon. His speculation: Trump now tells Bebe "Look. We did what you asked us to do. Their capability is significantly degraded. Now, stop the attacks because you have no longer have a proximate reason to make war." Bebe has been telling the world that Iran is weeks to months away from a bomb for decades, so how close were they really? My friend speculated that we sent the B2s because Israel had neutered Iran's air defenses to the point where this became a very low-risk mission... perhaps a once in a hundred years opportunity to send a strong message without getting any Americans killed. And yes, as Childers suggests, all carefully orchestrated backstage once the reality of Iran's defenselessness was obvious to all the players.
We won't know the truth for 50 years, but this lukewarm take seems plausible. And it fits certain patterns we've seen with Iran and Israel.