Much Ado Over Nothing?

A peculiar thing has been happening, both on the comment sections of this blog and other sites where Iranians have been speaking out against an attack on Iran: we have been chided for it, and not just for the predictable reason that anyone against a war on Iran is labeled as pro-Islamic Republic or Pro-terrorism. In keeping colonial tradition of condescending paternalism, we are also told that we are "paranoid" and "crazy", that no such war is in the making, and that our time is better spent elsewhere.

Never mind the spy drones flying over Iran , the updating of war plans, and the parallels between the U.S. pronouncements on Iran and what happened in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are to listen to Bush when he says that the notion of "attacking Iran is simply ridiculous", and forget that he announced in the same breath: " Having said that, all options are on the table".

Indeed they are, and several recent developments give us more reason to fear that a confrontation with Iran is in fact on the agenda. Let me turn to these events now, and iterate once again why we must keep speaking up against war on Iran.

Yesterday's delay of the Russia-Iran Nuclear Deal , announced after the apparently cordial contact between Putin and Bush may have led some to wonder about a causal connection between the two. Perhaps, but the nuclear deal between Iran and Russia was sealed anyway .

Despite the signing of an additional protocol between the two states requiring that Iran return spent fuel that could be used for weaponry, the deal is sure to keep the U.S. on the offensive and Iran defensive on the issue of WMD. But just as the WMD claims were not enough in making the case for an attack on Iraq, they wont do for the Iranians either. For one, the U.S. needs to articulate its wars so that they can be justified under the umbrella of the "War on Terrorism". Additionally, ever the champion of humanity and human rights, the U.S. administration must put a compassionate face on the entire endeavor.

In order to achieve the latter, Bush periodically asserts solidarity with the Iranian people, and I've talked about the duplicity and dangers behind such claims in my first post on this blog . Just the other day, the State Department made a humanitarian gesture of offering aid after the recent earthquake in Kerman, but the Iranians are said to have (I think wisely) refused it.

The issue of linking Iran to terrorism is a bit trickier, this despite numerous unfounded assertions that Iran is linked with Al-Qae'da (the sworn enemy of the IRI) and by extension to the resistance in Iraq. The assassination of Rafiq Harriri and Friday night's bombing in Tel Aviv are being deployed to fill in the gap. Although Hizbollah has denied responsibility for the bombings, the U.S. press has repeatedly implied, if not explicitly claimed, that the group was behind both acts. Bringing Hizbollah in to the picture, however, allows for implicating both Syria and Iran , two birds with one stone.

As long as this triad?accusations about the acquisition of WMD, the sponsorship of terrorism, and the crocodile tears for Iranian human rights?appear in the press and on the lips of various U.S. officials, then anti-war Iranians must remain alert and active. Those who will continue to reproach us for doing so can always rely on Orientalist tropes about "Easterners' penchant for conspiracy theories" to dismiss away our concerns.

*Niki Akhavan

Hypocrisy and Philanthropy

What are the real objectives behind the campaign against war on Iran? What makes some people think that it has to be in support of the Iranian government? I have come across these questions very often and have been explicitly told that instead of denouncing war against Iran, we had better put all the pressure of propaganda on the Iranian government to give up its nuclear ambitions. This might make sense if we assess things in a simplistic manner. This kind of attitude is clearly based on the assumption that the US is the world supreme and super power and therefore is very well capable of making war. Thus the only way to stop war is to convince the weak part to avoid any situation which would give the powerful side any reason to start this war.

It is my conviction that this way of looking at the issue is based on a number of fallacies. First of all, if we believe that the US is a superpower which would even ignore the decisions and agreements of the international community and the UN and is always prepared to start a war wherever it wishes pre-emptively, then there is absolutely no point in convincing Iran to give up its ambitions. This idea is obviously based on the assumption that a war is inevitable and what we must do is to minimize the casualties. Personally, I do not think this is why and how I should be against war. I have, from the very beginning of the issue, had some theoretical perspectives which encompass a wide range of issues, namely the future of democracy all around the world.

What is at stake today is not simply the sovereignty of Iran and its territorial rights. Nor is it merely an increasing threat of terrorism around the world. We have to be first of all alerted that the media and propaganda are shaping our minds the way they wish, with their stereotype terrorism, Islam and Iran. These patterns are at best useful for simplistic minds. This attitude fails to notice the little differences which can have massive impacts. Democracy itself is crumbling from within in a country which represents the most powerful bonds of democracy and civil society. I believe we have a unique opportunity in targeting the debasement of all civil patterns of life and all democratic values that mankind has achieved so far. It is by no means a dispute where you would say it should be either against the US or against the Iranian government. It is true that there may be many Americans and many Iranians who are in favour of war, but being against war from this perspective neither means that we are allies of the Iranian government or in favour of continuation of suppression and infringement of individual liberties, nor does it mean that we have a specific hostility with the Americans. It is true that in the minds of many Iranians, American interventions have left very painful memories. Yet, it does not mean that one should forget realistic and critical approaches to serious issues such as war which can have a global impact on the lives of all people in Iran. This problem cannot be solved unless there is a unanimous will on both sides. Let us not forget that it was never Iran who threatened that it would invade the US or Israel. They have always responded to the threats that they have received from them. Suppose somebody threatens to invade the UK for any reason. What do you expect the British reaction to be? A peaceful and apologetic one? Or suppose the Iranians had already threatened that they would invade the US (suppose they had the power to do so), how would the Americans respond?

In any event, one of the immediate results that I wish to see out of this media campaign is to undermine the legitimacy of per-emptive war started by any country in the world for any reason. This seems to me to be well founded in humanistic and philanthropist values that I know. After all, we do not have any hidden agenda to serve either the American or Iranian politicians. We are first of all human beings and then Iranians. This war is an infringement of human values first. Let us stick to our common roots of humanity first, although there are thousands of their reasons to denounce this war.

*Daryoush Mohammad Poor

Insurance Brokers

Many people have argued that in the current talks about U.S. policy towards Iran, Europe and the U.S. have been playing the ?good cop/bad cop? game (you guess who the bad cop is!) This makes some sense, but the ?game? is actually more complex than involving two big action heroes (the good old Europe and the rebellious cowboy) who police the evil villain (Iranian Mullahs). Of course, one can argue that not all decision-makers in Iran are ?Mullahs,? and not all Iranian Islamic clergies think the same. A detailed attention to different factions and their political power in different levels of authority reveals that the state in Iran is not a coherent body of authority spatialized ?vertically? above the ?society,? even as it is often imagined as such. Despite what one thinks about the role of religion in the state, as Alireza has pointed out in his last post, flattening the Iranian state and the government as ?theocracy? and opposing it to American ?democracy? is too simplistic.

But, that is a different discussion than what I want to address here: a modality of government that plays an important role in managing both foreign and domestic policies in the U.S., but is not limited to the state apparatus. This is a more refined ?game? within the U.S. government that goes beyond limited understandings of a unified state. The U.S./Europe/Iran scenario trio and the ?gaming? logic, which characterize many discussions about a possible war on Iran, hinder many nuances. Such an approach to the state ignores- to borrow from Foucault- the ?multiple regime of governmentality? that brings together private and public forms of expertise and agencies- in this case in a transnational context.

Foucault?s definition of governmentality is instructive in understanding the situation at hand. Governmentality for Foucault, is ?the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatus of security? (Governmentality, 1978). It is the governmentalization of the state rather than the etatisation of society (state control) that is an important element of our times.

Why do I think Foucault?s concept of governmentality is relevant to what we are currently witnessing in the case of U.S. policy towards Iran? Let me explain. Yesterday, I got an email from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) with the subject line that read, ?Experts Testify on Iran Policy at Congressional Hearings.? In the body of the of the email message, I read, ?Iranian People Are Our Allies, Pressure on Regime Needed, Experts Testify at House Hearing.? Wanting to know what was meant by this headline, and curious to learn who these ?experts? were, I clicked on the link and read NIAC?s report. Sure enough, I learned about these ?experts? in the second paragraph: ?Sick, who testified via video-teleconference, was joined by former US Ambassador Mark Palmer with the Committee on the Present Danger, and Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center about next steps on US policy toward Iran. The hearing follows statements made by President Bush earlier this week that the United States is conducting a ?policy review? of Iran.?

Experts

Who is Sick, you ask? He is a Senior Research Scholar and the acting director of School of International and Public Affairs? Middle East Institute at Columbia University. He served on the National Security Council under Ford, Carter and Reagan, and was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. Sick acted as the Executive Director of Gulf/2000, an Alton Jones and Rockefeller research project at Columbia University which studied political, economic and security developments in the Persian Gulf. Sick was the Deputy Director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation from 1982 to 1987, where he was responsible for programs relating to U.S. foreign policy. He is also a member of the board of Human Rights Watch in New York and the Chairman of the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East. All of the above have qualified him as an ?expert? to appear in front of the Congress (well, via communication technologies) and testify that ?the West must keep its spotlight on Iran and encourage true voices of democracy.? A lot of Sick?s qualifications and affiliations are seemingly ?non-governmental? (human rights, academia, private foundations), but as an ?expert? with all of the interests I have listed, he is a part of the governmentality that I will address in this post.

Like Sick, Sokolski, the next ?expert? who testified is involved with both education and ?non-governmental? agencies. He is the executive director of The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), ?a project of the Institute for International Studies (IIS), [which] is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, educational organization founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues. NPEC educates policymakers, journalists, and university professors about proliferation threats and possible new policies and measures to meet them.? (Notice, again, the non-profit, non-partisan, educational, and not-a-part-of-the-state, but a part of the government).

Now what is this ?Committee on Present Danger? (CPD) on behalf of which Palmer (the third ?expert?) testified in the House hearing a couple of days ago? CPD was founded in 1950 ?as a bipartisan education and advocacy organization dedicated to building a national consensus for a strong defense against Soviet expansionism.? Apparently, in 1976 it reemerged ?with leadership from the labor movement, bipartisan representatives of the foreign policy community and academia, all of whom were concerned about strategic drift in U.S. security policy.? While with the end of the Cold war, CPD was inactive, it is very much active now. CPD claims: ?today, radical Islamists threaten the safety of the American people and millions of others who prize liberty. The threat is global. They operate from cells in a number of countries. Rogue regimes seek power by making common cause with terrorist groups. The prospect that this deadly collusion may include weapons of mass murder is at hand. Like the Cold War, securing our freedom against organized terrorism is a long-term struggle. The road to victory begins with clear identification of the shifting threat and vigorous pursuit of policies to contain and defeat it.? (Notice again, that CPD is a non-profit/ ?non-governmental? organization with members who are academics, labor movement activists--well, at least in the 1950s- and ?independent citizens,? who are concerned about a ?threat.?)

Here is an excerpt from CPD?s mission statement (I have underlined what I consider to be key elements to my discussion):

?Our mission is to educate free people everywhere about the threat posed by global radical Islamist and fascist terrorist movements; to counsel against appeasement of terrorists; and build support for a strategy of victory against this menace to freedom? We are incorporated as a not-for-profit (501(c)(4)) organization. Our membership is limited to those in private life and does not include elected or appointed full-time federal or state officials or candidates for public office. All members serve in their individual capacities and not as official representatives of any other group or organization. We are all independent citizens. As a Committee, we recognize no ties or obligations to any Administration or political party.

? Our principal activity will be educational and the advocacy of positions based upon a full, fair and objective factual foundation. The Committee will use a variety of means to carry out its mission, such as articles in magazines and newspapers, speeches, interviews, commissioned studies, issue conferences and symposia, position papers and pamphlets, news conferences, public opinion polls and Congressional testimony. The Committee will concern itself with broad principles and policy objectives. Our concern is with strategies and goals, with the broad thrust and direction of policy, not with the details of its day-to-day implementation.?

The last sentence highlights the modalities of governmentality (policies, opinion polls, testimonies) that cannot be reduced and collapsed into the work of the state (implementation). Based on the affiliations and interests of the three "expert" witnesses, I want to suggest that these ?experts? are agents whose testimonies embody insurance technologies- which in Francois Ewald?s words is a technology of risk. I see these experts as insurance brokers who guarantee not just American democracy and ?our way of life,? but the interests of the market economy. As Ewald argues ("Insurance and Risk", 1991), insurance as a historical process and a practice of a certain type of rationality, is connected to ?geometry of hazard? and risk. Risk in insurance terms does not refer to an event happening in reality, but the probable occurrence of events that may or may not happen to capitals and values of a population. So, the risk doesn?t exist in reality, but everything can be at risk according to the art of analyzing the danger, or ?the threat? if you will. Let me examine this ?threat? and the values and capitals of the population that it puts at risk.

The Threat

According to Ewald, the insurer is not a passive agent registering the risks and offering guarantees against them. The insurer ?produces risks.? This argument fits very well with the testimonies of our insurance agents (I meant to say Middle East experts!) While the experts tell us that ?there is a very good chance that a U.S. attack on Iran would end [the] internal opposition [to the Iranian regime by ?pro-Western? Iranian people],? they do not rule out the presence of a risk. In fact, the non-military solutions suggested by these experts do not take away from the fact that they actively produce the risk: ?When asked by Lantos if they believed Iran was developing their nuclear program for peaceful reasons, all three witnesses answered no.? We have already seen the element of ?threat? in the mission statement of both NPEC and CPD. Let me give some more examples of this production of risk by our ?expert? insurance agents at NPEC in their recent testimony.

Three days ago ( February 16, 2005), the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center released the Report of the Iran Competitive Strategies Working Group. In this report, which is conveniently called ?Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran,? we read:

?these workshops [of the working group] identified three threats that are likely to increase following Iran?s acquisition of a nuclear weapons option:

? Even More Nuclear Proliferation?
? Dramatically Higher Oil Prices?
? Increased Terrorism Geared to Diminish U.S. Influence?

All of these threats are serious?.?

Thus, definition of threat in this report does not limit it to nuclear proliferation, but includes geopolitical and economic losses to the U.S. as possible risks.

The report further tells us, ?the truth is that Iran soon can and will get a bomb option. All Iranian engineers need is a bit more time -- one to four years at most. No other major gaps remain: Iran has the requisite equipment to make the weapons fuel, the know-how to assemble the bombs; and the missile and naval systems necessary to deliver them beyond its borders. As noted in the working group?s earlier report (see Checking Iran?s Nuclear Ambitions) no scheme, including ?just in time? delivery fresh fuel and removal of spent fuel from Bushehr, will provide much protection against Iran diverting its peaceful nuclear program to compliment its covert efforts to make bombs.? So while NPEC does not suggest a military solution, it actively produces a risk for which insurance measures should be taken. We are told in this report that without a regime change or a drastic change of attitude by Iranian statesmen, the risk remains probable.

Let me give you some more examples, this time from the Committee for Present Danger, in order to point to what I see as subtly different terminology used by the two organizations. As the name of the Committee for Present Danger suggests, the members of this organization seem to be concerned with more than a probable threat. They suggest that a form of danger is ?present.? This ?presence? connotes a materiality (it is here) and a temporal urgency (it is here now). Thus as we will see in the statements of the members of the CPD, they advocate for the eradication of this danger: ?this generation?s war must be won!? This organization?s website has a section called ?the threat? and the subtitle of the site is: ?dedicated to winning the war on terrorism.? But how does one reconcile this imminent threat suggested by CPD and the suggestion by NPEC that a military action on Iran will worsen the situation for the U.S.?

One explanation may be the fine line between ?danger? and ?risk? (or threat, in NPEC?s language). Danger, as Robert Castel ("From Dangerousness to Risk", 1991) has argued in the case of preventative social administration techniques in France and the United states, is a paradoxical notion. It both affirms the quality of immanent to a subject, and a mere probability, for the proof of danger could only be provided after the fact. It is this unpredictability that gives the idea that even if a person appears calm and harmless, s/he may become dangerous. On CPD?s page we read, ?murderous ideology being nothing new, the question becomes how does this threat from radical Islamic terrorists compare to previous threats? The principal difference between this ideology and the expansionist fascist and communist regimes that preceded it in the last century is that Islamist terrorism is not a regime at all. It is the perversion of a major religion (approximately 1.5 billion members worldwide) through delusions of Muslim victimhood.?

Thus while 1.5 billion Muslims may appear calm, there is always the chance of deviation: ?The ideology of Islamist terror by itself poses a dangerous threat, capable of evil committed in the name of God. Fueled by the accelerant of state support, the threat of Islamist terror increases dramatically?. But, in this case, what is proliferating are not weapons but self-anointed holy warriors. The blinding hatred that drives them is all-consuming. It leaves no room for doubting whether, given the chance, they would use any weapon of mass destruction ? nuclear, chemical or biological ? at any time against any people.? So, CPD identifies and locates the potentially dangerous by describing the ?breeding grounds? of danger in Africa, Asia- and yes- in North America, where ?Islamic terrorists? have formed ?sleeper cells?!

But how does one confine the 1.5 billion individuals who may become ?dangerous?? Immigration policies are one way of locating and controlling this danger, but in a time when Muslim diasporas are spread across the world, the confinement may not be quite practical. So, rather than a certain danger, the deployment of a probable threat becomes necessary for the development of multiple insurance strategies that promise to save the ?free world? from the harms of this internal and general risk. It is, as Castel argues, when ?the notion of risk is made autonomous than that of danger? that a systematic pre-detection becomes possible. Everyone becomes subjected to modalities of intervention that does not locate the danger in a subject, but is concerned with risk factors and statistics (work of universities, foundations, and think tanks; i.e. the ?experts?) in order to prevent the threat in any way possible. Thus, NPEC tells us that the probability of ?Iran going nuclear? is less if there is a regime change. This implicitly means the correction of the ?risk population? not through disciplinary methods (such as war), but by ?teaching? democracy through entities such as ?Radio Farda? (I wonder if this forward-looking name for the Voice of America is accidental!)

For insurance to be effective, risk has to be calculable and predictable. It is perhaps no accident that George Shultz (a Stanford professor and a fellow at the conservative think tank, Hoover; a member of the board of directors of Bechtel Group, Fremont Group, Gilead Sciences, and Charles Schwab & Co.; chairman of the International Council of J. P. Morgan Chase and chairman of the Accenture Energy Advisory Board; chairman of Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board) writes on the CPD website: "We face a clear and present danger, so we must identify the danger accurately and realistically, with no punches pulled, and support the necessary actions to deal with the danger decisively.? It is no accident that think tanks such as Hoover have started specific programs on developing policies to envision the ?future of Iran,? where predication seems to work both based on techniques of quantifying danger in these centers, and as a promise for a utopian future. One dimension of techniques of insurance in Ewald?s theory of risk is the principle that to calculate a risk is to master time and to discipline the future. This may translate into ?reviewing policy?, may culminate in the use of ?preemptive war? as a strategy of protecting the ?free world? from the harms of ?the dangerous,? or it could mean securing a system of training subjects into docility (another slip! I meant to say American democracy!).

With this idea of a general risk, the American population also needs to become increasingly calculable, manageable, and observed. Thus, the Patriot act, the increased general surveillance, the opinion polls about war, all become parts of these technologies of risk that pretend to eradicate risk by deploying notions of security and through creating a constant fear of the probable. Furthermore, unlike an accident, a risk concerns a population, and as Ewald argues, ?the work of the insurer is, precisely, to constitute that population by selecting and dividing risks. Insurance brings solidarity under the rhetoric of mutual interests. CPD?s mission statement is a good example of the way insurance against the ?threat of terrorism? constructs solidarity around shared national interests: ?In times of great challenge to the security of the United States, Republicans, Democrats and Independents have traditionally joined to make an assertive defense of American interests.?

Insurance in this sense is a technique of administering justice where the damage to one is borne by all. Regardless of the nature of insurance measures, one thing is clear: If you don?t buy insurance, you are responsible for the losses not just to yourself, but to all Americans, or to the whole ?free world.? That is perhaps why Midge Decter, the Former Director of the Committee for the Free World and a member of CPD tells us that "the United States is the leading ? indeed at the moment the only ? major world power. It continues, as it always has done, to play this role reluctantly. Thus each international crisis is made to seem an entirely new and separate ? and surprising ? issue to deal with. Yet whether we take up the burden of our power willingly or reluctantly, it will remain our inescapable burden still. If we fail to act, that too will be an action. It is time for Americans to understand this and to be grateful that it is they, and not some monstrous regime, who have been chosen by Providence to play this role.?

But in this ?hyper-rational? prevention, there seems to be little concern for the social and human costs of this pre-detection. There seems to be no concern for soldiers who die, no concern for civil liberties, and certainly no concern whatsoever for people who are marked as ?potential risks? and are killed in preemptive wars. But, what is ironic about the politics of insurance is that it functions through the rhetoric of rights. Ewald points out that the insurance companies have pioneered both, techniques of probabilistic calculation and disciplining the future, and the juridical form of the insurance contract (in particular the beginning of labor law). It is perhaps not a coincidence that the labor movement of the 1950s was a part of the CPD. Insurance makes security to be contractualized and legalized, where the state guarantees the stability of insurance institutions. Along the same lines, one can argue that buying into insurance measures that promise to control the threat of terrorism is represented as a way to practice and protect one?s rights. But insurance is also a guarantee for state stability. Ewald argues that insurance moves the concept of time from the life of individual to the life of society: ?In guaranteeing security, the state is equally guaranteeing itself its own existence, maintenance, permanence.? Thus as insurance brokers, the experts who have testified about the "Iranian threat" are the guarantors of state stability (reading the testimonies makes it clear that it is the stability of the United States and the state of Israel which are issues of concern).

Let me bring some more telling examples of the way the ?threat? has been described and qualified by CPD members (I call these the insurance brokers of American democracy and market economy), who are as they say ?independent citizens,? but have affiliations to state and supra-state entities. What is striking in many of these statements is the repeatability of the threat, which is another characteristic of risk. A risk is only a risk if it can be expected to happen regularly. If it is not the threat of fascism or communism, Islamism in these CPD members? rhetoric is capable of repeating September 11:

Joseph Liberman, Senator and the honorary Co-Chairman of CPD: ?The war against terrorism is not just a war of arms, but also a war of values. The threat from Islamist terrorism is the challenge of our generation, just as fascism and communism were the challenges past generations of Americans faced. We defeated those enemies, and we will defeat this one, if we stay steadfast in our purpose and true to our values. The values we cherish ? life, liberty and happiness for all ? will carry us to victory.?

John Agresto, (Former Senior Advisor for Higher Education and Scientific Research, Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq Former President, St. John's College): "In fighting terrorism we should not be deluded. We are not fighting poverty or a political movement. It's an enemy that wants nothing less than our values and way of life to be removed permanently from the world scene."

Ali Al-Ahmed, (Director of The Saudi Institute): ?The war on terrorism must be waged as a total war with guns and ideas simultaneously. The war of ideas is most important."

Peter Brookes, (Director of Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation): "The scourge of terrorism is a unprecedented challenge to international peace and stability that must be defeated through a proactive strategy of resolve and international cooperation."

Rachel Ehrenfeld, ( Director, American Center for Democracy): "Losing the War on Terrorism is not an option for the U.S.; It is time for Americans to recognize that the War on Terrorism is a war to defend the lives of each and every one of us, as well as our Western civilization."

Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1995?99): "Imagine the morning after an attack even more devastating than 9/11. What is it worth for us to avoid the attack if possible and to survive it if it happens despite our best efforts?"

Lawrence J. Haas (Former Communications Director, White House Office of Management and Budget): "We praise the 'Greatest Generation' for defeating Germany and Japan. We applaud post-World War II generations for winning the Cold War. But, too often, we forget that today's War on Terrorism raises the same stakes, and requires the same commitment, as our earlier struggles. The sooner we fully recognize the danger at hand, the sooner we can address it with the energy that's needed to prevail, as we must. I expect the Committee to play a major role in this effort."

Jerome M. Hauer (Former Director, Response to Emergencies and Disasters Institute, George Washington University; Former Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services): "The threat of terrorism has grown and the tactics of terrorists have broadened. We must find ways to defeat those who would try to change the fabric of this great nation. The Committee on the Present Danger will work to better educate our policy makers and the public in ways to reduce this rising threat."

Robert P. Kogod (Business Executive President, Hartman Institute, Jerusalem; Advisor to the Secretary, The Smithsonian Institution): "As in the past, the Committee has correctly identified a clear and present danger to our nation. Radical fundamentalism and terrorism must be confronted and destroyed as soon as possible. It is a threat similar to Fascism and Communism."

Charles M. Kupperman, (Vice President, Strategic Integration and Operations, Missile Defense Systems, The Boeing Company): "Winning the war against global terrorism is fundamental to international security in the 21st Century and we must be relentless in rooting out the terrorist network."

Hedieh Mirahmadi, (Executive Director, World Organization for Resource Development and Education): "Ultimately, our long-term success in the war against terror will be determined by how effectively free people everywhere wage the ideological battle, which cannot be fought with military might or law enforcement. As Americans, we cherish the universal human rights of freedom and we need to help others who struggle every day to enjoy those same rights."

Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University): "Unlike Pearl Harbor, which led the United States to enter World War II and to achieve definably decisive victory within less than four years, the war against terror requires a long-term strategy and necessary capabilities all within a new mindset. We need unconventional responses to unconventional threats ? terrorist challenges unlike anything we have faced before 9/11."

Danielle Pletka (Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute): "Enemies of the United States are engaged in an existential war against the very principles underlying our republic. Neither jail nor courts will contain them; rather we must take the fight to them, and recognize that peace will come only though victory."

Nina Rosenwald (Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Board of Directors, Middle East Media and Research Institute): "If terrorism is not defeated now, it will only be more difficult and more costly to defeat it later. It would have been so much easier to stop Hitler before he crossed The Rhine."

Kenneth R. Timmerman (Executive Director, Foundation for Democracy in Iran): "Just as the Reagan administration rolled back Communist tyranny, today we can roll back the tyranny of radical Islam and the terrorist regimes it has spawned. But the first battle will be here at home, where we must defeat the blame-America-first pundits of political correction."

William Van Cleave, (Professor, Southwest Missouri State University; Director, Center for Defense and Strategic Studies; Senior Defense Advisor, 1979?81): "Islamic terrorism is an unconditional and existential threat not only to America and Israel, but also to Judeo-Christian culture. We have no choice but to recognize that war has been thrust upon us, and that principles of warfare apply. Only by denying success to this threat ? by a combination of anticipatory defensive and offensive measures ? can we defeat it."

Governmentality and Political economy

So far I have focused on the notion of threat/security and the population. As Foucault suggests, there is a third element to governmentality: that of political economy. How is the art of governing through insurance relate to political economy? Ewald argues that what is insured is not the injury suffered by a person, but ?a capital against whose loss the insurer offers a guarantee.? Insurance provides the principle for the objectification of people and their relations. Ewald?s argument may not quite address forms of governmentality that extend beyond the limits of the nation-state. However, I believe that it is this ?solidarity through things? that brings the neo-liberal economy to the forefront of discussions about policies towards Iran. The report produced based on the study conducted for NPEC by energy researchers at Rice University reveals that the insurance against the ?threat? of terrorism is closely tied to neo-liberal economy:

?Historically, after a major terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, markets worry, the price of oil increases, and Iran?s own oil revenues, in turn, surge upward?.Given that one-fifth of the world?s entire oil demand flows through the Straits (as well as roughly a quarter of America?s supply of oil) and no other nation that has fortified its shores near Hormuz, an Iranian threat to disrupt commerce there would have to be taken seriously by commercial concerns (e.g., insurers and commodity markets) and other nations.?

The fact that the markets are the main concern for these "experts" reveals that it is not just "our values" and rights, nor democracy that is being insured here (although that seems to be the claim); what is being insured is the market in neo-liberal economy.

As the claims about ?exporting democracy? in the "war on terror" have proven, neo-liberalism is not limited to economic policies, but involves the dissemination of market values to all social action. Unlike classical liberalism, neo-liberalism does not conceive the rational economic behavior as natural, but as organized by law and in need of political intervention. Thus, the discourse on the project of ?rationalization? of Iranian economy, more often than not, is coupled with advocacy for social norms such as freedom and democracy- which in an arbitrary manner is supposed to facilitate competition and free trade. Too often, causal links are drawn between democracy and market economy. It seems as if it is a given fact that democracy and free market go hand-in hand together.

While market, and not the state, becomes the regulative principle of society, rational action on behalf of every member of society, and legal protection become necessities to a successful economic mechanism within the neo-liberal language that privileges economic growth. State legitimacy becomes contingent upon the extent and speed of implementation of this economic rationality. Hence, the call for a regime change is only one suggested strategy by NPEC. A drastic change in Iranian state?s economic policies is their other alternative.

Unlike classical liberalism, neo-liberalism extends the economic domain to every sphere of life and constructs individuals as entrepreneurial actors. As such, the free rational individual becomes responsible for her/his actions, even if her/his actions are limited by unemployment and limited state-subsidized welfare. The ideal neo-liberal individual becomes one who chooses between the economic options, rather than seeking to change these options. Thus, any critique of global capitalism is suspended as an obstacle to the flow of ?progress? in the world economy.

What we are witnessing in the case of Iran shows that the only two available options are either the one suggested by the ?experts? who I have discussed here, or a military attack. This makes this ?game? a catastrophic living reality for people who live in Iran. Unfortunately, despite the celebrations of some Iranians who prefer neo-liberal insurance brokers? suggestions as a healthy alternative to war, neo-liberal economic policies have proven to increase the gap in poverty in both national and international levels. More often than not, neo-liberal policies support authoritarian and corrupt states.

Reading the NPEC report and Sokolski?s testimony leave no doubt in my mind that the objective of these testimonies is to secure the global market, to give geopolitical privileges to Israel and the U.S., to allow further activity of multi-national corporations in the region, and to restrict immigration. Their non-military solution is only a profitable insurance technology that can easily change to preemptive war if the conditions of the "game" change. Because of the contingency of the political environment in the Middle East, terms of security and notions of risk will be deployed differently to guarantee the interests of the market and U.S. imperialism. This may very well mean that preemptive war can be suggested by the same ?experts? as an insurance strategy. We have seen such drastic changes in the case of Iraq, haven?t we? Think Hoover. Think Larry Diamond. Think the Progressive Report! These policy-making think tanks that are embedded in U.S. educational institutions can cause devastating material effects on many people's lives. The neo-liberal discourses of these ?experts? may not immediately subject the Iranian people to the violence of war. But the other option does not look very promising either.

*Sima Shakhsari is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology at Stanford University.

The Politics of Ambivalence and Appropriation

A couple years ago, as I was preparing to leave my house to attend the annual Bahman 22 (February 10) rally marking the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran, I learned, to my great astonishment and amusement, that a formerly Communist relative of mine (I will call him an "uncle") would be driving us to the demonstration. My uncle, a respected doctor and editor of several popular magazines, had not suddenly discovered some kind of new love for the Islamic Republic, whose very ideological foundations he was, and still is, fiercely at odds with. Even so, he was probably the most enthusiastic among our little group of relatives at the rally, making repeated excited remarks about how many people had shown up, and at least once, running up a pedestrian overpass overlooking Azadi (freedom) street near Sharif University to get a better view of the massive turnout of Tehranis. That day was a particularly cold and snowy Bahman 22, much like the anniversary this year. There were many more umbrellas than there were banners, and people bought little plastic cups of roasted lima beans and lentil soup to keep warm. My uncle, whose presence at the rally on that day I consider to be the perfect reflection of a political "ambivalence" that I mean to talk about in this post, articulated the reason for his presence as support for the "sayyid" (Mohammad Khatami, at the time already president for two years) who was to speak at the end of the demonstration (although even his use of the term "sayyid" had inflections of irony and parody, but I won't get into that issue here). His knowledge of the fact that he would be among the hundreds of thousands of people from across Iran that the right-wing-controlled state television would show (I would say "appropriate") again and again and again and again for the next two weeks with triumphant declarations that the people had "renewed their allegiance" with the Islamic Revolution did not deter him the least bit from his decision to show his support for the reformist president in this way.

Most politicians and political analysts (from journalists to pundits to even political scientists) do not seem to like the concept of "ambivalence" very much. In their analyses, people are always neatly bunched into groups "for" or "against" something (often an entire system of governance), and judgments are often made about how close each of these groups are to "us" or to "them" based on the "criteria" (often serving only the heuristic interests of the analyst in question) that unite or divide them. There is not a lot of room in these interpretations for nuance or uncertainty in people's relationship toward ideas, individuals, political parties, historical events, etc. and this leads, in my opinion, to serious errors in judgment, sometimes with dire consequences.

Herein lies, I believe, the quandary that many observers of Iran, both within the country and without, are faced with in explaining the often "paradoxical" political behaviors of Iranian society: sit in most any taxicab or gathering of friends and relatives and you are bound to hear angry complaints about the crimes du-jour of the "akhoonds" and their most recent destructive policies; and yet there is a good chance that you might see the same people from the taxicabs and family dinners taking part in a "pro-government" demonstration (like Bahman 22) or participating in an election that friends and foes of the government alike would interpret as an endorsement of the "Revolution."

The solution to the resulting confusion (ever so apparent in the writings of most influential opinion-makers in the west - Friedman and Ledeen come to mind for some reason), lies, I believe, in avoiding reductive and homogenizing categorizations of people as either "regime loyalists" or as outright opponents of the state, and instead being mindful of nuances in political positionings and ambivalent relationships toward a multitude of ideologies, histories, political personalities and groups (with their respective histories and ideologies), within the context of shifting local, national, and international politics. Even the Iranian "state" and its semantic equivalents in western journalistic parlance (from the highly imprecise "mullahs" to the equally ill-defined "Islamic regime") are extremely amorphous and elude homogeneous characterizations, and the feelings that "the people" harbor toward this amorphous mass need to be interpreted with close attention to nuance and specificity.

Of course, one might argue that there is political purpose behind the neglect of "ambivalence" and the wholesale appropriation of a heterogeneity of beliefs and attitudes for bolstering narrowly specific political interests. State television in Iran uses the mass turnout at every demonstration or nationwide election to trumpet the "people's" approval of conservative or right-wing elements in the state. Western media likewise exploit every "anti-government" protest or confrontation between the different political forces in Iran to trumpet the decline of the "people's" interest in the "Revolution" and the imminent downfall of the "regime." But the cracks in these pictures of perfection (whether utopic or dystopic) often become apparent in ways that are both compelling and ironic: The massive turnout of people to vote in the 1997 presidential election, for example, ended up endorsing the underdog (Khatami) whom the ruling right wing had consistently bashed for his "anti-Islamic" and "counter-revolutionary" policies. The large turnout of people at the Bahman 22 protest last week presents an inverse picture, in my opinion, that confounds the expectations of the likes of Friedman and Ledeen who want us to believe that Iranians are "hungering" for the Bushniks to "liberate" them from their oppressors. In both cases, I believe it is wrong to lump together "the people" using generalizations that would have them at one instance as "loyalists" and at the other as "opponents" of the government. Any analysis would have to take into account the multitude of forces that are at play in any individual's decision to take part in such high-visibility collective actions as a national election or rally (whether pro- or anti-government); from feelings of nationalism and religious conviction to anti-imperialist sentiment to specific feelings about particular political groups and personalities or even particular issues of national interest (in this case for example, the issue of nuclear energy), and to balance these, once again with attention to specificity, with feelings about the economy, the suppression of dissident voices, government mismanagement, and so on.

Ambivalent positionings can bring seemingly opposing feelings together: one can vehemently criticize the government's suppression of dissent while supporting the nuclear program; one can oppose the totalitarianism of the right wing while also opposing the subversion of the government through foreign military intervention; and one can cry foul at the dismantling of democratic process (for example at the most recent parliamentary elections) while simultaneously taking part in the same flawed process with hopes of bolstering democracy in general. The same can of course be said of the American context (as Niki pointed out eloquently in the previous post). It is possible to be "for freedom" while opposing U.S. military expansionism. We need to be able to recognize ambivalence in such complex relationships as those between "people" and "state" if we are to avoid being misled by those whose political interests lead them to make grand generalizations about the state of entire nations.

*Alireza Doostdar is a Ph.D. student in Social Anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University.

With "Us" or with "Them"

The foundations being set for a potential attack on Iran?claims about the possession or acquisition of WMDs, the threat to U.S. national security, the marching in of international inspectors and mediators, the foregrounding of dubious claims by "exiled" agitators--are predictably parallel to the case of Iraq, the details of which should be exposed, and probably will be on the pages of this very blog.

These steps towards war are being taken as I am writing now (claims of "routine" updates notwithstanding), and many Iranians living inside and outside of their country are already speaking out loudly in resistance. But we have also become the target of the familiar accusations, the same ones that continue to be hurled against Iraqis who object to the occupation of their country: to be against war is to be for nuclear proliferation, to be against the war is to condone the current regime, to be against the war is to be "Anti-American".

These accusations, though shallow and reductive, nonetheless have a surprising power in silencing and intimidating. After all, which Iranian in post 9/11 U.S.A is not on some level afraid of appearing sympathetic to "terrorists". We who have seen the special registrations and sweeps of Iranians, the surveillance and harassment of West Asian students and activists across U.S. campuses, and numerous daily pressures that go un-named, know that these accusations can stick with heavy penalties.

It is a similar predicament for those Iranians?whether residing in Iran or in diaspora?who reject the current Iranian regime, and may have risked their lives in opposition to it. They find themselves pigeon-holed as defenders of the regime, if not as agents ensuring its survival.

The fact of the matter is that one cannot infer a person's position vis-୶is the U.S. or Iranian governments based solely on their opposition to a war on Iran and to the devastating cost in human life, destruction, and political turmoil that will surely ensue from it.

These either/or options that are continually forced upon discussions about a war on Iran (e.g. "you are either with the U.S. occupation or with the Iranian regime", "you are either for the war on Iran or against "freedom", etc.), foreclose opportunities for considered political stances: people end up censoring themselves, or worse yet, adopt progressively extremist positions in desperate attempts to be heard.

This blog and many others like it attempt to create the space denied to those of us who refuse the imposed binaries that stifle imaginations and impede the potentials for action. The more of us step outside the boundaries, the less we will find ourselves marginalized.

*Niki Akhavan

War Games

The comments in response to Niki's post incited me to write this entry. I am troubled by some of the underlying assumptions in these responses. Let me start with Nur's comment. Nur writes, "On the other hand Iran could simply abandon its nuclear ambitions. That would be nice. If I am not mistaken they feel that nuclear weapons would be a deterrent. This reasoning is badly flawed and needs to be reconsidered immediately. The ball is in Iran's court. Let us hope they choose wisely."

To me there is no doubt that nuclear weapons should be abandoned, not only by Iran (assuming that Iran has such weapons), but also by the U.S. and Israel, where nuclear development programs are proliferating un-problematically as we speak. I don't think nuclear weapons are the means by which peace can be achieved anywhere. But the silence around the development of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Israel reveal the naturalized assumption that these states have the capability of handling these deadly weapons rationally, where others do not. Such reasoning is troublesome as it falls back on the Eurocentric ideas of the rationality in the "West" in opposition to the "savagery" and "barbarity" of the rest.

Unlike Nur, I don't think that "the ball is in the Iranian court." It is an all American game... a deadly one that uses nuclear weapons to conquer. It seems to me that the U.S. is on a world tour... The losers? Ordinary Iranian people and those who die on both sides.
The winners? Corporations that profit from the development of nuclear weapons, military machines, "reconstruction projects," and oil. In fact for those who are afraid of losing their homes and their lives, it is not a game at all. A game connotes the consensual play of both sides. Just like a video-game, this war is a one-sided game. Perhaps it is this Game Boy mentality that leads Tim to write, "NUKE IRAN BEFORE THEY NUKE U.S.A!"

The comments in response to Niki's post incited me to write this entry. I am troubled by some of the underlying assumptions in these responses. Let me start with Nur's comment. Nur writes, "On the other hand Iran could simply abandon its nuclear ambitions. That would be nice. If I am not mistaken they feel that nuclear weapons would be a deterrent. This reasoning is badly flawed and needs to be reconsidered immediately. The ball is in Iran's court. Let us hope they choose wisely."

To me there is no doubt that nuclear weapons should be abandoned, not only by Iran (assuming that Iran has such weapons), but also by the U.S. and Israel, where nuclear development programs are proliferating un-problematically as we speak. I don't think nuclear weapons are the means by which peace can be achieved anywhere. But the silence around the development of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Israel reveal the naturalized assumption that these states have the capability of handling these deadly weapons rationally, where others do not. Such reasoning is troublesome as it falls back on the Eurocentric ideas of the rationality in the "West" in opposition to the "savagery" and "barbarity" of the rest.

Unlike Nur, I don't think that "the ball is in the Iranian court." It is an all American game... a deadly one that uses nuclear weapons to conquer. It seems to me that the U.S. is on a world tour... The losers? Ordinary Iranian people and those who die on both sides.
The winners? Corporations that profit from the development of nuclear weapons, military machines, "reconstruction projects," and oil. In fact for those who are afraid of losing their homes and their lives, it is not a game at all. A game connotes the consensual play of both sides. Just like a video-game, this war is a one-sided game. Perhaps it is this Game Boy mentality that leads Tim to write, "NUKE IRAN BEFORE THEY NUKE U.S.A!"

I am not surprised by the comment by the "Iranian guy" where he asks Bush to "attack Iran as soon as possible." To this man, Bush is "our only hope in Iran for freedom and democracy." There is no question that the state repression in Iran has pushed certain segments of the society to accept war as the only option to rid Iran from the rule of the current regime. The generic and all-encompassing name "Iranian guy" notwithstanding, by no means does this approach represent the "will of the people.? Unfortunately, however, these voices are the ones that are appropriated by the Bush administration to legitimize war. Sites such as Iranians for Peace reflect the opposition to war by young Iranians who have worked hard towards change in Iran. Some of the most vocal people against a possible war on Iran are those who have at one point or another been arrested by the Iranian government. The politics of Iran cannot be reduced to ?mullahs vs. Bush? that the ?viva Bush- down with mullah? slogan of the ?Iranian guy? suggests.

Obviously, it is difficult to say what percentage of people in Iran opposes war. However, eight years of experiencing war has proven that besides death and destruction, war only halts dissent. As patriotic sentiments in times of crisis mobilize people to defend territorial boundaries, any form of dissent is deferred and any progress towards political change is halted. If a segment of the Iranian youth desires a military attack, it is perhaps because they have no memory of the years of war, and perhaps because they only get their news from satellite television programs that are industriously working to sketch a rosy image of American democracy. I doubt that these youth ever hear about the attacks on abortion clinics, the demise of education, the inherent racism that criminalizes people of color in the U.S., the homophobia that constantly denies queers rights of citizenship, the gang violence, and the list goes on?

Frankly, I am not convinced that a military attack on Iran will even remove the current regime. The case of Iraq (and I am referring to the bombing of Iraq during Bush Senior?s presidency) has shown that "precision bombing" and supporting ?pro-democracy? groups cannot bring regime-change. It will only make conditions of living harsher for many Iranians who live in Iran.

*Sima Shakhsari is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology at Stanford University.

How Long is "Now"

A squirming Donald Rumsfeld made the rounds on the Sunday talk-shows a few days ago, broadcasting familiar platitudes about the situation in Iraq and West Asia in general. But he refused to answer questions about whether Iran represented the biggest threat to the U.S. and to the region, despite the fact that Thomas Friedman was killing himself to put words in Rumsfeld's mouth to that effect. But Rumsfeld dodged the issue even when pressed by the other co-host that he was avoiding the question, deferring instead to Bush and Rice and claiming that the U.S. was on a diplomatic path with Iran.

What explains Rumsfeld's reticence on the issue? Has he acquired a sense of tact? Lost his characteristic belligerence? Gained a new found respect for diplomacy?

Doubtful.

More likely is that he is simply on pause mode as Rice makes overtures to NATO and "old Europe" and pushes for a united front against Iran. In the meantime, the rest of the Bush administration has to maintain a fa硤e of awaiting the co-operation of their allies.

The nauseating spectacularization and fetishization of the recent Iraqi elections seems to have hoodwinked many into casting away any doubts they may have had about the U.S. project in Iraq (and I am not speaking here of the U.S. public alone, the majority of the Euro press shared in the uncritical praise of the elections). Rice has to act quick to get support for the next U.S. invasion before the Iraqi election results are announced and its disastrous consequences unleashed.

The latest negotiations between Iran and the Europeans begin this week. The Results of the Iraqi elections are due out in the same period.. On February fourth, Rice proclaimed that an U.S. attack on Iran was not "on the agenda now".

In a handful of days, we will find out how long "now" lasts.

*Niki Akhavan

A realistic contrast

Freedom of speech can possibly end up in freedom of action, except probably in Iran and the United States. It may sound a little bit incongruous with the idealistic picture we have of the US in mind, but it is true. Yet, it may be very much troubling for many people to acknowledge that despite all despotism in Iran, there are certain freedoms and within that same ?obscurantism? dictated by the state, the people of Iran have a much broader political knowledge (and with some caution, responsibility) than the American people.

Why do I suggest this comparison? Because I strongly believe that, as I have said in the past, there is a very striking resemblance between the American politicians and their Iranian opponents. They feed on this apparent opposition. However, at a deeper level, they both seek their own survival.

Perhaps, it does not seem so irrelevant if we focus on launching a campaign against the promotion of nuclear power by the Iranian government. It seems fine so far. No wise person would advocate the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the notorious ?Weapons of Mass Destruction? in any part of the world. However, the major concern behind this opposition is peace and preservation of life for everyone (and making ALL nations accountable including the US and Israel). Let us suppose, for one minute, that instead of sounding the alarm against a war triggered by the Americans, we concentrate on denouncing the so called anti-democratic policies of Iran. What happens next? Iran may possibly become a modern colony of the United States. Is this what we are seeking? If we go ahead by legitimising the modern, so called liberating ?state sponsor of terror?, which is in my opinion the United States, when do you imagine we will be able to combat this consolidated power and institutionalized ignorance already developed and promoted by force of gun and our credulous ignorance?

I do not think that the central issue is whether we should oppose an American led war against Iran or not, even if it is in terms of mere hollow threats used as a trial balloon. There are more important things at stake. Freedom, liberalism and democracy are the targets of this modern war on human liberties. I do not see much difference on the levels of governments between Iranian governors and the Americans. There are more or less the same ideas for a virtual propaganda on war. We have to be concerned about people and how power is to be shared and made accountable in the world. The US politics does not show such promising signs. This is what we have to be worried about.

*Daryoush Mohammad Poor

Mission Statement

The escalated public discourse about a possible military attack on Iran has alarmed many Iranians in Iran and its diaspora. As Iranians who are concerned about the implications of a war on our country, we have created this weblog to build a platform for preemptive dissent. In addition to our concerns about the fatalities of war, we are also troubled by the suppression of dissent in the U.S. and in Iran, and believe that war profoundly perpetuates civil repression.

Recent history has shown that the U.S. ratification of international laws does not prevent it from pursuing its expansionist project. For this reason, we do not rule out the possibility of a military attack on Iran. We recognize that transnational networks of power, including the media, corporations, fundamentalist movements, and non-governmental organizations, reveal the inadequacy of the "international" model. Therefore, we suggest an analysis that is attentive to the global phenomena that characterize the so called "war on terror."

It is clear to us that the post 9/11 crusade of the United States relies on a Manichean and colonial logic that situates "Western freedom and democracy" in opposition to "Islamic backwardness and tyranny." We resist such discursive binary constructions that reproduce colonial legacies, and instead locate these forms of knowledge-production within the gendered and raced global capitalist relations. We question the taken-for-granted notions of terror, freedom, democracy, and fundamentalism, by pointing to the contradictions that mark hegemonic usage of such tropes.

The current contributors of No War on Iran come from different disciplines and backgrounds. However, we are committed to the analytical approaches that we have highlighted above and strongly refuse to become complicit with discourses that legitimize war in the name of "liberty" and "democracy."

More on Conflating Iran's "Government" with its "People"

In the last post, Niki pointed out that it was both disingenuous and dangerous to radically de-couple "the people" from "the government" in the current climate of threats being made against Iran: "We may be able to tell the difference," between government and people, she said, but "bombs cannot."

I would like to add a point to this argument: Even "we," the observers of the current standoff on the Iranian nuclear program, no matter where we stand politically on this issue, need to be very careful about being able to make the distinction between government and people correctly. This is important, I believe, because at least on the surface of things, these two entities seem to view the nuclear issue somewhat differently, and it is important to carefully consider this difference.

The Iranian government has always adamantly insisted that its nuclear program is strictly for energy purposes, that it cannot rely on oil alone to satisfy its growing energy needs (Iran actually imports billions of liters of gasoline each year), and that mastering the technology for nuclear energy production is a key objective in ensuring national "self-sufficiency." To allay concerns that the energy program might be a front for a nuclear weapons program, the Iranian government recently signed on to the additional protocol of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by less than half of NPT member-states so far, and which allows for snap inspections of nuclear facilities by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The U.S. and Israel claim that none of this is satisfactory, and that they still believe Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapons capability. Of course, there is really no way to determine the truth of this accusation. Recent experience tells us however, that the U.S. is usually not to be trusted when making statements about the WMD programs of other countries. And Israel is not qualified the least bit to make such accusations, as it has consistently refused to even sign on to the "basic" NPT treaty, much less renounce its large and ambitious nuclear weapons program and its massive stockpile of nuclear warheads.

But even if no one may be able to objectively determine the "true" nuclear intentions of the Iranian government, the nuclear intentions of the "people" seem to be relatively clear and consistent: Most Iranians support not only a nuclear energy program, but indeed, a full-fledged nuclear weapons program (also see here and here). In this sense, the people may be more radical than the government. The question that just begs to be asked here is this: when Bush condemns Iran for its nuclear program but says "America" stands by the "Iranian people," is he willing to acknowledge that one of the very few issues that can perhaps unite "the people" against America is support for the "government's" nuclear program, and perhaps even a program more radical than what the government itself is pursuing?

*Alireza Doostdar is a Ph.D. Student in Social Anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University.

George Bush's 2005 State of the Union address contained a familiar (de)coupling, one which he been known to espouse elsewhere: a threat to the Iranian regime, "the world's primary state sponsor of terror" , and a gesture of assurance to the Iranian people that "America" stands with them in their pursuit of liberty.

I will be the last person who would argue that the ruling regime in Iran?or any other place for that matter?can be conflated with the people of the country. But to radically de-link the people of Iran from their government in contexts such as the above is both disingenuous and dangerous. No matter how many photos we are shown of Iraqis under occupation stuffing ballot boxes with checks next to un-named candidates, or how often we see the stylish Karzai playing the role of the sovereign statesman, Bush's forays into Iraq and Afghanistan have reminded us of the obvious: though we may be able to tell the differences between people and states, bombs cannot.

Iranians, no matter what their political persuasions or stance towards the current regime, must adamantly reject any claims of so-called support which go hand-in-hand with calls to war.

And with this entry, my first contribution to the new anti-war co-blog, I will take my own advice and register my objection to any act of solidarity with the Iranian people which is based on violence against us.

*Niki Akhavan

Democratic Illusions

Yesterday, I received an email from someone who asked why I was so worked up about a possible war on Iran. "It is unlikely that the U.S. would attack Iran," the author of the email said, "because Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan." It is true. The situation in Iran is quite different than that of Iraq or Afghanistan, and we need to keep that in mind in our analyses of a possible war on Iran. But I am not convinced that my worries are unfounded, nor do I believe that Iran's case is separate from the expansionist project of the U.S. in the Middle East.
As a matter of fact, I have been concerned for a while now about what kind of future is awaiting Iran. There have been many reasons to worry, all of which are too close to home.

To start with, shortly after Bush announced his “war on terror,” the conservative think tank, Hoover- which is located on the campus where I am pursuing my education, started a program to develop policies towards Iran. Interestingly, it was people from this very program who wrote the 2003 "Progressive Internationalism Report: A 'Democratic' National Security Strategy." The authors of this report (some of whom are good old liberals!)endorsed the invasion of Iraq, claiming that containment was no longer an option. Knowing this, I have wondered about what is being decided for the Iranian people in the name of “the people” in places such as Hoover and in a coalition between certain segments of Iranian diaspora and the U.S. law makers.

I was also concerned when Sam Brownback, Kansas Senator and the author of the "Iran Democracy Act," in his 2003 Keynote speech at the American Enterprise Institute forum on “The Future of Iran,” declared that Iran was “the most significant source of terrorism in the world as well as the single biggest opportunity for a peaceful democratic revolution in our age.” What does this statement mean, especially when it was iterated in the midst of a so called "war on terror?"

You see, as much as I want to believe that the neoconservatives in the U.S. cannot legitimize an attack on Iran, the very recent history of events has shown that liberals, neoconservatives, and conservatives can put their differences aside and happily endorse the rhetoric of "war on terrorism." Whether one supports a military attack on Iran, or promotes democracy through “peaceful solutions,” the common assumption seems to rely on the dichotomy of “success” of democracy in the U.S., against its lack elsewhere. There is nothing new about this logic. It has its history in colonial discourses in Europe and the U.S. The new part, perhaps, is the way that forms of neo-liberal governmentality couple economic agendas of global capitalism with tropes of “freedom” and “democracy.” And these forms of governmentality go beyond ideological and regulatory state apparatus (Hence my concern about the role of corporations, communication technologies, and “non-governmental” Iranian diasporic organizations in projects of "envisioning the future of Iran").

My other reason to write preemptively against a war on Iran is the racist backlash against the Iranian communities in the U.S. After September 11, 2001, when Bush declared a “war on terrorism,” the question that came to mind was “who are these terrorists and who defines acts of terrorism?”
After all, it was only a few years back when Timothy McVeigh, a white supremacist, had bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, and causing immense terror. Was Bush to hunt down “white men”? No. The criminaliztion of men of color in the U.S., who were arrested for “looking like terrorists,” made it clear that terrorists have a “particular look.” Bush’s “axis of evil” talk made it clear that they live in particular parts of the world, but have been “creeping” into our home through the cracks in the immigration system. Immigration and Naturalization Services became a part of the Department of “Homeland Security.” Policing and surveillance became an everyday part of “American way of life,” as they increasingly revealed the failures of American multiculturalism.

Bush’s military crusade has made it clear that we are to expect a long war with no fixed target and no bounded geographical designation. What is distinct about this “new war” is that no clear offense needs to be committed before the U.S. launches a military attack: “Terrorists” could be anywhere and preemption is needed to destroy them! If Taliban were trained by the CIA to create terror in Afghanistan for many years, so be it; now they are “against us.” If Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, so be it. We, in the “land of freedom” are fighting “terrorism!” If we cannot prove that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iran, no problem! They “foster terrorism!”

It seems to me that the trope of “terrorism” has become necessary for the legitimization of U.S. expansionist projects and for the suppression of dissent here at home. But we cannot be quiet about any form of U.S. intervention in Iran. After all, the case of Iraq has shown that “diplomacy” can easily turn into bombs and military occupation. Too many lives have been lost in this bogus "war on terror." Our voices of dissent are needed to stop the violence of war in Iraq and Afganistan, and to prevent the occurance of a war in Iran. Bush's claims of "exporting democracy" notwithstanding, U.S. intervention does not bring democracy; it often creates and supports undemocratic regimes. As they say, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”

*Sima Shakhsari is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology at Stanford University.

What is tyranny, after all?

I think the new emphasis of Bush on his plans, in his State of the Union, reveals that we are facing someone with daft policies who is determined to change the world as he wishes. The empty promises of freedom and end of tyranny may seem very much appealing to those who have always been deprived of their civil liberties. But is that all? What is this tyranny that Bush is talking about? To what extent have the Americans themselves contributed to the continuation of these tyrannies around the world? We have a dilemma and double problem here.

On the one hand, we do not wish the neo-cons with their aggressive and arrogant attitudes to govern the fates of the peoples of the world. Anyone who has some knowledge about the process of the development of democracy and its principles would realize that this attitude is a threat to civil society everywhere, including the United States. Bush is apparently calling himself committed to advancing freedom in the world. But, first of all, what gives him this right to consider himself the representative of the people of the world? Was the American democracy set up by force of military intervention of another country? What makes him think that he is ethically and legally authorized to do this, else than the fact that he has power? Unlimited and unbridled power has blinded the eyes of wisdom in the Unites States. Moreover, this corruption of power is overcoming all the ideals of that democracy. It is a cancer developing right under our nose.

On the other hand, when it comes to Iran, we have multiple problems. It is true that we do not have the kind of freedom we expect from a democratic civil society and the people of Iran have shown that they are more than willing to witness a non-violent power sharing democracy governing in Iran. However, the hardliners cherish the idea of war (after so many years, Bush and the Iranian hardliners have found something in common!). It will, no doubt, make a hero of all of them as people who are defending the nation and its territories. I think it is really futile to speak of the illegitimacy of either Bush?s claims or the hardliners? propaganda. Invasion of a territorial state is clearly a violation of international laws. The American arrogance and intoxication of power does not seem to allow them to think wisely and realize that they can never ever eradicate tyranny like this. It would merely give way to the birth of a new tyranny under a different guise. The nature of that tyranny never changes. Instead of challenging faces and forms, the real debate and the gravest combat lies in transforming a system from within and this is what the American people have failed to do: for more than four years they have failed to convince the neo-cons that their policies is a threat to world peace. Strikingly, what happens in Iran is no more threatening than what happens in the US. We have a silent majority who do not speak up and allow their rulers to wage war in their name. Yet, the situation of Iranian people is far better than that of the Americans. Iranian people, those who are indeed concerned about their freedom, neither appreciate the hollow conceited remarks of Bush, nor do they consent to terrorism of any sort, be it American or fundamentalist approaches to Islam.

Let the people of Iran decide and speak for themselves. Do not speak on our behalf. We have tongues ourselves and we do have all the means to express what we think, even in Iran. And this goes for both sides: the Bush administration and the Iranian hardliners who have hijacked political power. Let democracy and freedom flourish the way they should. The ethos of democracy is alien to the rule of a monolithic, dogmatic and ambitious pursuit of power.

Let us just for a few minutes consider, in horror, that the American invade Iran to change the regime (the same regime that they know very little about). What happens next? Have we ever thought about that? Let us even forget, that in best calculations, a lot of civilian people will be murdered (not killed, murdered) and a lot of our infrastructures will be destroyed. Let us forget about all the damages. Let us all the same assume that the Americans will, with their own money, rebuild what they have destroyed for changing the regime (everyone knows that they will never do so; they will never rebuild my demolished house). Who will be their alternative for ruling Iran? Suppose they allow us to choose whoever we wish. How can we find those people? Would it be too difficult to envisage that they will only consent of the election of those they wish themselves? Does it seem too hazy in the future horizon that they will set up a different Council of Guardians who will, nonetheless, be ignoring our wish? Can somebody answer these questions before they think of simply getting rid of the present regime?

Even if we put aside all our sympathies, as Iranians, for our nation and even for the revolution, what are the alternatives? Any alternative would turn out to be gruesome and daunting. There is no future in a democracy at gunpoint. Beware! O Americans and Iranians! The hawk of a devastating war can be flying above your heads. You rulers! Prove to the world that you are worth having. Don?t fail your own families at least!

Related materials:
Bush's second-term 'call to arms'
Bush's 2004 State of the Union
Full text of Bush's 2005 State of the Union
United States and Europe Differ Over Strategy on Iran
Reflections on the State of the Union (Hoder)
The new problem of democracy:
interview with Professor John Keane (University of Westminster):
Part 1 & Part 2.

Rhetoric of freedom and its paradoxes

Perhaps one of the central issues which have to be addressed when someone is denouncing the warmongering of the Bush adminnistration is the palpable existence of the language of civil society and liberalism. Contrary to what Bush is apparently claiming, there is no such thing as freedom and democracy on his agenda at all. Freedom and democracy are, most optimistically, excuses for establishing and reconsolidating the military hegemony of the US in the Middle East region. I would even go further to say that this is not merely for the Middle East. It is a much broader attempt to restore the damaged face of the American foreign policy in the world.

It goes beyond saying that those who have been pondering on the more theoretical aspects of the issue immediately recognize the flaws of Bush's rhetoric. Liberal democracy is coming to a point of decline in the Unites States. One might be able to call the American society a civil society which could secure the individual liberties of its citizens, but it would be indeed inconceivable to say that this is the achievement of Bush administration.

Raising the flag of war against Iran or even threatening to do so, is the hallmark of the decline of liberalism in the US. The very tone and language of war, particularly when it takes an ideological and dogmatic embodiment in terms such as 'Just War' are terrifying in themselves. This language is being misused for power. I think there is an urgent need for a sort of linguistic disobedience to purify the language of civil society from barbarian elements which have crept into it under the pretext of freedom. The double standards of Bush's kind of democracy end up in the debasement of democracy itself.

*Daryoush Mohammad Poor

Preemptive Dissent

Had I believed the current U.S. government had the slightest of what I consider to be "common sense," I would not be writing this today. The irony is, George W. Bush's "sense" does seem to be quite "common" here in America, and that is bad news for everyone in the world, but particularly for the people of Iran.

I would rather err on the side of caution and take the dangerous signals being sent out by Neoconservatives and Likudniks in the U.S. and Israel during recent months very seriously. If any of us has the power to do anything to prevent disaster, we will have to do it now. One dimension of any effort at such prevention will have to be in the realm of information, or more precisely, in fighting the dis-information campaign that is being waged at an ever-more alarming rate, some say to test the waters, others say to lay the grounds, for a coming war.

This group blog is one small step in that direction.

*Alireza Doostdar is a Ph.D. student in Social Anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University.