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 ==''In 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 officialsMad World, 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.”</p>Logic of MAD Still Works''==

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<p/i>But are reported that American intelligence [[agencies]] believe the country is a decade away from producing a [[nuclear arms in 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 hands of <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 rulers really nuclear ambitions pose "a [[threat to ]] for the entire [[international peace and security? To answer the question properly, one has to locate it in its political and ideological contextcommunity]].</p>"

<p>Every power structure has to rely on an underlying implicit threat, i.e. whatever But are nuclear arms in the oficial democratic rules and 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 fantasmatic projection hands of Iran's rulers really 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 international peace and omni-present) threat of this enemy that legitimized security? To answer the existing power structure’s permanent state of emergency. Fascists invoked the threat of the Jewish conspiracy, Stalinists the threat of the class enemy, 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 virtualquestion properly, one cannot afford has to wait for locate 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 its [[:category:politics|political]] and human rights (e.g., the London police’s recent execution of the innocent Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes)[[:category:ideology|ideological]] context.</p>

<p>Classic Every [[power functioned as a structure]] has to rely on an underlying [[implicit threat that operated precisely by never actualizing itself]], by always remaining a threatening <i>gesture. </i> Such functioning reached its climax in e. whatever the Cold Waroficial [[democracy|democratic]] rules and [[law|legal]] constraints may be, when the threat of mutual nuclear destruction we can ultimately do <i>hadwhatever we [[want]]</i> to remain a you. In the 20th century, however, the [[nature]] of this link between [[power]] and the [[invisible threat]] that sustains it changed. With the “war Existing power [[structures]] no longer relied on terror”their own [[fantasy|fantasmatic]] [[projection]] of a potential, the invisible threat causes in [[order]] to secure the incessant actualizationhold over their [[subjects]]. Rather, not of the threat itselfwas externalized, but[[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 measures against the threatexisting power structure’s permanent [[state of emergency]]. The nuclear strike had to remain [[Fascism|Fascists]] invoked the threat of a strikethe [[Jewish conspiracy]], while [[Stalinism|Stalinists]] the threat of the terrorist strike triggers [[class]] enemy, [[United States|Americans]] the endless series threat of <i>preemptive</i> strikes against potential terrorists[[Communism]] - all the way up to today’s "[[war on terror]]. We are thus passing from " The threats posed by such an invisible enemy legitimizes the [[logic ]] of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to a logic in which ONE SOLE MADMAN runs the entire show and [[preemptive strike]]. Precisely because the threat is allowed [[virtual]], one cannot afford to wait for it to enact its paranoiacome. The power that presents itself as always being under threat Rather, living one must strike in mortal dangeradvance, and thus merely defending itselfbefore it is too late. In other [[words]], is the most dangerous kind of poweromni-the very model present <i>invisible</i> threat of [[Terror]] legitimizes the Nietzschean all too <i>ressentiment[[visible]]</i> and moralistic hypocrisy. And indeedprotective measures of defense - which, it was Nietzsche himself whoof course, more than a century ago, in are what pose the <i>Daybreak,[[true]]</i> provided threat to [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] (e.g., the best analysis [[London]] police’s [[recent]] execution of the false moral premises of today’s “war on terror”:</p>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 <blockquotei> No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquestgesture. Rather, </i> Such functioning reached its climax in the army is supposed to serve for defense[[Cold War]], and one invokes when the morality that approves threat of self-defense[[Mutually Assured Destruction|mutual nuclear destruction]] <i>had</i> to remain a threat. But this implies one’s own morality and With the neighbor’s immorality; for "[[war on terror]]", the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, [[invisible threat]] causes the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighborincessant actualization, who denies not of the desire for conquest just as much as our own statethreat itself, and whobut, 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 the measures against the threat. The nuclear strike had to overpower remain the threat of a harmless and awkward victim without any fightstrike, while the threat of the terrorist strike triggers the endless series of <i>preemptive</i> strikes against potential [[terrorism|terrorists]]. Thus all states We are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor’s bad disposition 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 their own good dispositionis allowed to enact its [[paranoia]]. This presupposition, however The power that presents itself as always [[being]] under threat, is inhumane[[living]] in [[mortality|mortal]] [[danger]], as bad as war and worse. At bottomthus merely defending itself, indeed, it is itself the challenge and most dangerous kind of power - the cause very [[model]] of warsthe [[Nietzsche]]an <i>[[ressentiment]]</i> and [[morality|moralistic]] [[hypocrisy]]. And indeed, because as I have saidit was Nietzsche himself who, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes more than a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure century ago, in <i>Daybreak,</i> provided the doctrine best [[analysis]] of the army as a means [[false]] [[moral]] premises of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests.</blockquote>today’s "[[war on terror]]":

<pblockquote>Is not No [[government]] admits any more that it keeps an [[army]] to [[satisfy]] occasionally the [[desire]] for conquest. Rather, the ongoing “war on terror” proof that “terror” army is supposed to serve for [[defense]], and one invokes the antagonistic Other [[morality]] that approves of democracy[[self]]-defense. But this implies one’s own morality and the point at which democracy’s plural options turn into a singular antagonism? Or, as we so often hear, “In [[neighbor]]’s [[immorality]]; for the face neighbor must be [[thought]] of the terrorist threat, we must all come together as eager to attack and forget conquer if our petty differences[[state]] must [[think]] of means of [[self-defense]].” More pointedly Moreover, the difference between reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the “war on terror” with previous 20th century worldwide struggles such desire for conquest just as the Cold War is that the enemy used to be clearly identified with the actually existing Communist empiremuch as our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, whereas today the terrorist threat is inherently spectral, without a visible center. It is hypocrite and a little bit cunning criminal who would like the description of Linda Fiorentino’s character in <i>The Last Seduction: </i> “Most people have [[nothing]] better than to overpower a dark side … she had nothing elseharmless and awkward [[victim]] without any fight.” Most regimes have a dark oppressive spectral side … the terrorist threat has nothing else Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor’s bad disposition and their own [[good]] disposition. The paradoxical result of this spectralization of the enemy This presupposition, however, is an unexpected reflexive reversalinhumane, as bad as [[war]] and worse. In this world without a clearly identified enemy At bottom, indeed, it is itself the United States, challenge and the protector against the threat[[cause]] of wars, that is emerging because as I have said, it attributes immorality to the main enemy-much like in Agatha Christie’s <i>Murder on neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the Orient-Express,</i> where, since [[doctrine]] of the <i>entire</i> group army as a means of suspects is self-defense just as completely as the murderer, the victim himself (an evil millionaire) turns out to be the real criminaldesire for conquests.</pblockquote>

<p>This background allows us to finally answer Is not the ongoing "[[war on terror]]" proof that "[[terror"]] is the [[antagonism|antagonistic]] [[Other]] of [[democracy]] - the point at which democracy's [[plurality|plural]] options turn into a [[singular]] [[antagonism]]? Or, as we so often hear, "In the face of the terrorist threat, we must all come together and forget our initial question: Yespetty differences." More pointedly, nukes for Iran-and Noriega and Saddam the [[difference]] between the “war on terror” with previous 20th century worldwide struggles such as the [[Cold War]] is that the enemy used to be clearly [[identified]] with the Hagueactually existing [[Communism|Communist]] [[empire]], whereas today the terrorist threat is inherently [[spectral]], without a visible center. It is crucial to see a little bit like the description of Linda Fiorentino’s [[character]] in <i>link[[The Last Seduction]]: </i> between these two demands"Most [[people]] have a dark side … she had nothing else." Most [[regime]]s have a dark oppressive spectral side … the terrorist threat has nothing else. Why are Timothy Garton Ash, Michael Ignatieff and other internationalist liberals-who are otherwise full The paradoxical result of this spectralization of pathetic praise for the Hague tribunal-silent about the idea to deliver Noriega and Saddam to the Hague? Why Milosevic and not Noriega? Why was there not even [[enemy]] is an unexpected [[reflexive reversal]]. In this [[world]] without a public trial against Noriega? Was clearly identified enemy, it because he would have disclosed his own CIA past, including how is the [[United States condoned his participation in ]], the protector against the murder of Omar Torrijos Herrera? In a similar way, Saddam’s regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimesthreat, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note the strange but key fact that, when is emerging as the U.S. representatives were enumerating Saddam’s evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (main enemy-much like in terms of human suffering and of violating international law): Agatha Christie’s <i>[[Murder on the aggression against Iran. Why? Because the United States and the majority of foreign states actively helped Iraq in this aggression. What’s moreOrient-Express]],</i> where, since the United States now plans to <i>continueentire</i> Saddam’s work group of toppling suspects is the murderer, the Iranian government[[victim]] himself (an evil millionaire) turns out to be the [[real]] criminal.</p>

<p>As This background allows us to finally answer our initial question: Yes, nukes for [[Iran ]]- and nukes, [[Noriega]] and [[Saddam]] to the surprising fact [[Hague]]. It is that crucial to see the MAD logic still operates today: <i>link</i> between these two [[demands]]. Why hasn’t are [[Timothy Garton Ash]], [[Michael Ignatieff]] and other [[internationalist liberals]] - who are otherwise [[full]] of pathetic praise for the tension between India Hague tribunal - silent [[about]] the [[idea]] to deliver Noriega and Pakistan exploded into an all-out warSaddam to the Hague? Because both sides are nuclear powers. Why have the Arab states [[Milosevic]] and not risked another attack on IsraelNoriega? Because Israel is Why was there not even a nuclear power. So why should this MAD logic not work [[public]] trial against Noriega? Was it because he would have disclosed his own [[CIA]] [[past]], including how the [[United States]] condoned his [[participation]] in the case [[murder]] of Iran[[Omar Torrijos Herrera]]? The standard counter-argument is that in Iran In a similar way, Muslim fundamentalists are in power who may be tempted to nuke Israel. (Iran is the only large Arab Saddam’s regime was an abominable [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] [[state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel]], [[guilty]] of many crimes, but resolutely denies mostly toward its right to exist as a state)own people. Is However, howeverone should note the strange but key fact that, when the Iranian regime really so “irrational”? Isn’t PakistanU.S. representatives were enumerating Saddam’s [[evil]] deeds, with its nuclear arms <i>they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime (in [[terms]] of [[human]] [[suffering]] and</i> its secret services’ ties to al-Qaeda, a much greater threatof violating [[international law]]): the [[aggression]] against Iran. Why? Furthermore Because the United States and the majority of foreign states actively helped [[Iraq]] in this aggression. What’s more, two decades ago, Iran the United States now plans to <i>wascontinue</i> brutally attacked by Iraq (with active USaddam’s [[work]] of toppling the Iranian government.S. support), so it has every right to feel threatened.</p>

<p>The last trump card of Western liberals As to Iran and nukes, the surprising fact is that the [[MAD]] logic still operates today: Why hasn’t the tension between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] exploded into an all-out war? Because both sides are nuclear powers. Why have the Arab states not risked [[another]] attack on [[Israel]]? Because Israel is a nuclear weapons would help sustain power. So why should this MAD logic not work in the anti[[case]] of [[Iran]]? The standard counter-democratic rulers argument is that in Iran, thus preventing [[Muslim fundamentalists]] are in [[power]] who may be tempted to nuke Israel. (Iran is the only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its [[right]] to [[exist]] as a democratic revolution therestate). This argument got a boost a few months ago Is, however, with elections in Iraq and Palestine. Was perhaps Paul Wolfowitz correct after allthe Iranian regime really so "[[irrational]]"? Isn’t there a chance that (Western) democracy Pakistan, with its nuclear arms <i>mayand</i> 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 antiits [[secret]] services’ ties to [[al-democratic Arab regimes need Israel as the figure of the Enemy that legitimizes their rule? ConsequentlyQaeda]], isn’t Bush merely accomplishing the work of Reagana much greater threat? In the same way that Reagan was “naively” convinced that democracy would undermine Communism and that Communism would fall Furthermore, thus proving all the skeptic specialists wrongtwo decades ago, perhaps Bush will be proven right in his “naive” crusade for the democratization of the Middle East.Iran <i>was</pi>brutally attacked by Iraq (with [[active]] U.S. support), so it has every right to feel threatened.

The last trump card of [[Western liberals]] is that nuclear weapons would [[help]] sustain the anti-democratic rulers in Iran, thus preventing a democratic [[revolution]] there. This argument got a boost a few months ago, with elections in Iraq and [[Palestine]]. Was perhaps [[Paul Wolfowitz]] correct after all? Isn’t there a [[chance]] that (Western) [[democracy]] <pi>may</i> 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. It is here that one approaches the crux of the matter: Such an optimistic [[reading ]] relies on the problematic [[belief ]] in a preestablished [[harmony ]] between the global spread of multi-party [[Western democracy ]] and the [[economy|economic ]] and [[geopolitics|geopolitical ]] interests of the [[United States]]. It is precisely because this harmony can in no way be taken for granted that countries like Iran should possess [[nuclear arms ]] to constrain the [[global ]] [[hegemony ]] of the United States. ==Source==* [[Give Iranian Nukes a Chance|Give Iranian Nukes a Chance: In a Mad World, the Logic of MAD Still Works]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. August 11, 2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2280/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekiranian.htm>.  [[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]] __NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__