Changes

On August 2, [[France]], [[Britain]] and [[Germany]] announced that they might cut off negotiations with [[Iran]] and pursue punitive sanctions if the country followed through on its [[threats ]] to resume its uranium enrichment program. The announcement came a day after the <i>Washington Post</i> reported that American intelligence [[agencies ]] believe the country is a decade away from producing a [[nuclear weapon]] - an assessment that differs with earlier timetables cited by Bush administration officials, who estimated that Iran was only five years away from such a weapon. Responding to the <i>Post</i> story, State Department spokesman Tom Casey dismissed the divergent timetables, noting that both the [[United States]] and [[Europe]] have concluded that Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose "a [[threat ]] for the entire [[international community]]."

Every [[power structure]] has to rely on an underlying [[implicit threat]], i.e. whatever the oficial [[democracy|democratic]] rules and [[law|legal]] constraints may be, we can ultimately do <i>whatever we [[want]]</i> to you. In the 20th century, however, the [[nature ]] of this link between [[power]] and the [[invisible threat]] that sustains it changed. Existing power [[structures ]] no longer relied on their own [[fantasy|fantasmatic]] [[projection]] of a potential, invisible threat in [[order ]] to secure the hold over their [[subjects]]. Rather, the threat was externalized, [[displaced ]] onto an [[Outside ]] [[Enemy]]. It became the invisible (and, for that [[reason]], all-powerful and omni-[[present]]) threat of this enemy that legitimized the existing power structure’s permanent [[state of emergency]]. [[Fascism|Fascists]] invoked the threat of the [[Jewish conspiracy]], [[Stalinism|Stalinists]] the threat of the [[class]] enemy, [[United States|Americans]] the threat of [[Communism]] - all the way up to today’s "[[war on terror]]." The threats posed by such an invisible enemy legitimizes the [[logic ]] of the [[preemptive strike]]. Precisely because the threat is [[virtual]], one cannot afford to wait for it to come. Rather, one must strike in advance, before it is too late. In other [[words]], the omni-present <i>invisible</i> threat of [[Terror ]] legitimizes the all too <i>[[visible]]</i> protective measures of defense - which, of course, are what pose the <i>[[true]]</i> threat to [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] (e.g., the [[London ]] police’s [[recent ]] execution of the innocent [[Brazil]]ian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes). Classic power functioned as a threat that operated precisely by never actualizing itself, by always remaining a threatening <i>gesture. </i> Such functioning reached its climax in the [[Cold War]], when the threat of [[Mutually Assured Destruction|mutual nuclear destruction]] <i>had</i> to remain a threat. With the "[[war on terror]]", the [[invisible threat]] causes the incessant actualization, not of the threat itself, but, of the measures against the threat. The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strike, while the threat of the terrorist strike triggers the endless series of <i>preemptive</i> strikes against potential [[terrorism|terrorists]]. We are thus passing from the logic of [[Mutually Assured Destruction|MAD]] ([[Mutually Assured Destruction]]) to a logic in which ONE SOLE MADMAN runs the entire show and is allowed to enact its [[paranoia]]. The power that presents itself as always [[being]] under threat, [[living]] in [[mortality|mortal]] [[danger]], and thus merely defending itself, is the most dangerous kind of power - the very [[model]] of the [[Nietzsche]]an <i>[[ressentiment]]</i> and [[morality|moralistic]] [[hypocrisy]]. And indeed, it was Nietzsche himself who, more than a century ago, in <i>Daybreak,</i> provided the best [[analysis]] of the [[false]] [[moral]] premises of today’s "[[war on terror]]": <blockquote> No [[government]] admits any more that it keeps an [[army]] to [[satisfy]] occasionally the [[desire]] for conquest. Rather, the army is supposed to serve for [[defense]], and one invokes the [[morality]] that approves of [[self]]-defense. But this implies one’s own morality and the [[neighbor]]’s [[immorality]]; for the neighbor must be [[thought]] of as eager to attack and conquer if our [[state]] must [[think]] of means of [[self-defense]]. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like [[nothing]] better than to overpower a harmless and awkward [[victim]] without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor’s bad disposition and their own [[good]] disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as [[war]] and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the [[cause]] of wars, because as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the [[doctrine]] of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests.</blockquote>

Classic power functioned as a threat Is not the ongoing "[[war on terror]]" proof that operated precisely by never actualizing itself, by always remaining a threatening <i>gesture. </i> Such functioning reached its climax in "[[terror"]] is the [[Cold Warantagonism|antagonistic]] [[Other]] of [[democracy]], when - the threat of point at which democracy's [[Mutually Assured Destructionplurality|mutual nuclear destructionplural]] <i>had</i> to remain options turn into a threat. With the "[[war on terrorsingular]]", the [[invisible threatantagonism]] causes ? Or, as we so often hear, "In the incessant actualization, not face of the terrorist threat itself, but, of the measures against the threatwe must all come together and forget our petty differences. " The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strikeMore pointedly, while the threat of [[difference]] between the terrorist strike triggers “war on terror” with previous 20th century worldwide struggles such as the endless series of <i>preemptive</i> strikes against potential [[terrorism|terroristsCold War]]. We are thus passing from is that the logic of enemy used to be clearly [[Mutually Assured Destruction|MADidentified]] (with the actually existing [[Mutually Assured DestructionCommunism|Communist]]) to a logic in which ONE SOLE MADMAN runs the entire show and is allowed to enact its [[paranoiaempire]]. The power that presents itself as always being under , whereas today the terrorist threat, living in is inherently [[mortality|mortalspectral]] danger, and thus merely defending itself, without a visible center. It is a little bit like the most dangerous kind of power - the very model description of the Linda Fiorentino’s [[Nietzschecharacter]]an in <i>[[ressentimentThe Last Seduction]]: </i> and "Most [[morality|moralisticpeople]] have a dark side … she had nothing else." Most [[hypocrisyregime]]s have a dark oppressive spectral side … the terrorist threat has nothing else. And indeedThe paradoxical result of this spectralization of the [[enemy]] is an unexpected [[reflexive reversal]]. In this [[world]] without a clearly identified enemy, it was Nietzsche himself whois the [[United States]], more than a century agothe protector against the threat, that is emerging as the main enemy-much like in Agatha Christie’s <i>Daybreak[[Murder on the Orient-Express]],</i> provided where, since the best analysis <i>entire</i> group of suspects is the murderer, the [[victim]] himself (an evil millionaire) turns out to be the false moral premises of today’s "[[war on terrorreal]]":criminal.

<blockquote> No This background allows us to finally answer our initial question: Yes, nukes for [[Iran]]- and [[governmentNoriega]] admits any more that it keeps an and [[armySaddam]] to satisfy occasionally the [[desireHague]] for conquest. Rather, the army It is supposed crucial to serve for see the <i>link</i> between these two [[demands]]. Why are [[defenseTimothy Garton Ash]], [[Michael Ignatieff]] and one invokes the other [[internationalist liberals]] - who are otherwise [[moralityfull]] that approves of selfpathetic praise for the Hague tribunal -defense. silent [[about]] the [[idea]] to deliver Noriega and Saddam to the Hague? Why [[Milosevic]] and not Noriega? Why was there not even a [[public]] trial against Noriega? But this implies one’s Was it because he would have disclosed his own morality and [[CIA]] [[past]], including how the [[neighborUnited States]]’s condoned his [[immoralityparticipation]]; for in the neighbor must be thought [[murder]] of as eager to attack and conquer if our [[Omar Torrijos Herrera]]? In a similar way, Saddam’s regime was an abominable [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] [[state]] must think of means of , [[self-defenseguilty]]of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. MoreoverHowever, one should note the reasons we give for requiring an army imply strange but key fact that our neighbor, who denies when the desire for conquest just as much as our own stateU.S. representatives were enumerating Saddam’s [[evil]] deeds, and who, for they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his part, also keeps an army only for reasons greatest crime (in [[terms]] of self-defense, is a hypocrite [[human]] [[suffering]] and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward of violating [[victiminternational law]] without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other): they presuppose their neighbor’s bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as the [[waraggression]] and worseagainst Iran. At bottom, indeed, it is itself Why? Because the challenge United States and the cause majority of wars, because as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and actforeign states actively helped [[Iraq]] in this aggression. We must abjure What’s more, the doctrine United States now plans to <i>continue</i> Saddam’s [[work]] of toppling the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquestsIranian government.</blockquote>

Is not As to Iran and nukes, the ongoing "[[war on terror]]" proof surprising fact is that "the [[terror"MAD]] is logic still operates today: Why hasn’t the tension between [[antagonism|antagonisticIndia]] and [[Other]] of [[democracyPakistan]] exploded into an all- out war? Because both sides are nuclear powers. Why have the point at which democracy's Arab states not risked [[plurality|pluralanother]] options turn into a attack on [[singular]] [[antagonismIsrael]]? Or, as we so often hear, "In the face of the terrorist threat, we must all come together and forget our petty differencesBecause Israel is a nuclear power." More pointedly, the difference between the “war on terror” with previous 20th century worldwide struggles such as So why should this MAD logic not work in the [[Cold Warcase]] is that the enemy used to be clearly identified with the actually existing of [[Communism|CommunistIran]] ? The standard counter-argument is that in Iran, [[empireMuslim fundamentalists]], whereas today the terrorist threat is inherently are in [[spectralpower]], without a visible centerwho may be tempted to nuke Israel. It (Iran is a little bit like the description of Linda Fiorentino’s character in <i>only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its [[The Last Seductionright]]: </i> "Most people have a dark side … she had nothing else." Most to [[regimeexist]]s have as a dark oppressive spectral side … the terrorist threat has nothing elsestate). The paradoxical result of this spectralization of Is, however, the Iranian regime really so "[[enemyirrational]] is an unexpected [[reflexive reversal]]. "? In this world without a clearly identified enemyIsn’t Pakistan, it is the with its nuclear arms <i>and</i> its [[United Statessecret]], the protector against the threat, that is emerging as the main enemy-much like in Agatha Christie’s <i>services’ ties to [[Murder on the Oriental-ExpressQaeda]],</i> wherea much greater threat? Furthermore, two decades ago, since the Iran <i>entirewas</i> group of suspects is the murderer, the brutally attacked by Iraq (with [[victimactive]] himself (an evil millionaireU.S. support) turns out , so it has every right to be the real criminalfeel threatened.

This background allows us to finally answer our initial question: Yes, nukes for The last trump card of [[Western liberals]] is that nuclear weapons would [[Iranhelp]]sustain the anti- and democratic rulers in Iran, thus preventing a democratic [[Noriegarevolution]] there. This argument got a boost a few months ago, with elections in Iraq and [[SaddamPalestine]] to the . Was perhaps [[HaguePaul Wolfowitz]]. correct after all? It is crucial to see the Isn’t there a [[chance]] that (Western) [[democracy]] <i>linkmay</i> between these two demands. Why are work and take roots in the [[Timothy Garton AshMiddle East]], and that this unexpected [[Michael Ignatieffprocess]] and other will [[internationalist liberalschange]] - who are otherwise full the coordinates of the entire Middle East? Isn’t the ultimate unresolvability of pathetic praise for the Hague tribunal - silent about Middle East [[conflict]] the idea to deliver Noriega and Saddam to fact that the Hague? Why anti-democratic Arab regimes [[Milosevicneed]] and not Noriega? Why was there not even a public trial against Noriega? Was it because he would have disclosed his own [[CIAIsrael]] past, including how as the [[United Statesfigure]] condoned his participation in of the murder of [[Omar Torrijos HerreraEnemy]]that legitimizes their rule? In a similar wayConsequently, Saddam’s regime was an abominable isn’t [[authoritarianism|authoritarianBush]] merely accomplishing the work of [[stateReagan]], guilty of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note ? In the strange but key fact same way that Reagan was "naively" convinced that, when the U.S. representatives were enumerating Saddam’s [[evildemocracy]] deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (in terms of human suffering and of violating would undermine [[international lawCommunism]]): the aggression against Iran. Why? Because the United States and that Communism would fall, thus proving all the majority of foreign states actively helped [[Iraq]] skeptic specialists wrong, perhaps Bush will be proven right in this aggression. What’s more, his "naive" crusade for the United States now plans to <i>continue</i> Saddam’s work democratization of toppling the Iranian governmentMiddle East.

As to Iran and nukes, the surprising fact It is here that one approaches the crux of the matter: Such an optimistic [[MADreading]] logic still operates today: Why hasn’t relies on the tension between problematic [[Indiabelief]] and in a preestablished [[Pakistanharmony]] exploded into an allbetween the global spread of multi-out war? Because both sides are nuclear powers. Why have the Arab states not risked another attack on party [[IsraelWestern democracy]]? Because Israel is a nuclear power. So why should this MAD logic not work in and the case of [[Iraneconomy|economic]]? The standard counter-argument is that in Iran, and [[Muslim fundamentalistsgeopolitics|geopolitical]] are in interests of the [[powerUnited States]] who may be tempted to nuke Israel. (It is precisely because this harmony can in no way be taken for granted that countries like Iran is the only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its right to exist as a state). Is, however, the Iranian regime really so "irrational"? Isn’t Pakistan, with its should possess [[nuclear arms <i>and</i> its secret services’ ties ]] to constrain the [[global]] [[al-Qaedahegemony]], a much greater threat? Furthermore, two decades ago, Iran <i>was</i> brutally attacked by Iraq (with active U.S. support), so it has every right to feel threatenedof the United States.

The last trump card of ==Source==* [[Western liberals]] is that nuclear weapons would help sustain the anti-democratic rulers in Iran, thus preventing Give Iranian Nukes a democratic [[revolution]] there. This argument got Chance|Give Iranian Nukes a boost Chance: In a few months agoMad World, with elections in Iraq and [[Palestinethe Logic of MAD Still Works]]. Was perhaps ''In These [[Paul WolfowitzTimes]] correct after all? ''. August 11, 2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2280/>. Isn’t there a chance that (Western) Also listed on ''[[democracyLacan]] .com''. <i>may<http://www.lacan.com/izizekiranian.htm> work and take roots in the [[Middle East]], and that this unexpected process will change the coordinates of the entire Middle East? Isn’t the ultimate unresolvability of the Middle East conflict the fact that the anti-democratic Arab regimes need [[Israel]] as the figure of the [[Enemy]] that legitimizes their rule? Consequently, isn’t [[Bush]] merely accomplishing the work of [[Reagan]]? In the same way that Reagan was "naively" convinced that [[democracy]] would undermine [[Communism]] and that Communism would fall, thus proving all the skeptic specialists wrong, perhaps Bush will be proven right in his "naive" crusade for the democratization of the Middle East.