The Neocon Imaginary Middle East: Again
Speaking of political frauds, the Web site Newshog has nailed Kenneth R. Timmerman for falsely alleging that Iran has bought nuclear warheads from North Korea. In fact, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran bought some ancient missile from Pyongyang, and there was never any question of a warhead. Timmerman is taken seriously by the White House, Congress, and the US press but in fact has no credibility as an Iran expert (at IC we like our Iran experts to know Persian, the way you'd expect an expert on France to know French; we're funny that way). Even the usually canny Jon Stewart gave Timmerman a respectful hearing.
French philosopher Michel Foucault defined "representation" as a process whereby a culture creates a stereotype of something and then substitutes the stereotype for the reality forever after. Once a "representation" is established, the reality can never challenge it, since any further information is filtered through the representation. The "representation" of Iran as a nuclear power, when it just has a couple hundred centrifuges (you need thousands) and is not proven even to have a weapons program, is becoming powerful and unchallengeable in the US media.
What does the International Atomic Energy Agency say about it all? Mohammaed Elbaradei says that there is no imminent threat from Tehran, and that there is a lot of hype.
Elbaradei has seen it all before, having contested Bush's false allegations about the imaginary Iraqi nuclear weapons program of 2003.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/31/2006 11:16:00 PM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Timmerman is not to be underestimated. He appears on Robertson's CBN and sends the audience into rapture. A fiery Iran confrontation fits into Scriptural prophesy. The Rev. Pat nods.
Don't bring up Foucault. Timmerman is an ex-francophile extraordinaire and knows gallican nihilism frontward and backward. Neocons will cite France as a case of total "deconstruction." Besides, there are many earlier and more lucid exponents of collective norm.
All societies, movements, and parties rely on general ideas or images, be they ideologies or religions. Lippman and Bernays were right that no public can function without them. The GOP has, and the Dems lack, precisely such a self-validating code.
Does linguistic competence confer any reliability? Bernard Lewis, Laurie Mylroie, Michael Rubin, Barry Rubin, Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, and Ephraim Inbar all know regional languages and probably support Timmerman. On the other hand, Anthony Cordesman probably has but limited grasp of Arabic and none of Persian. William E. Odom knows none. Who is more credible?
Linguists in general are apt to be more hawkish, not less. They are in most demand when the environment is most confrontational and when native speakers cannot qualify. US-trained Russian experts have rotten job prospects in a post Cold War world.
US students of Arabic, Persian, or Afghan languages are now at a premium at NSA, DIA, or CIA because they are scarce and because security clearance presents obstacles to others. And you don't survive in these agencies unless you share the mission zeal.
"The "representation" of Iran as a nuclear power, when it just has a couple hundred centrifuges (you need thousands) and is not proven even to have a weapons program, is becoming powerful and unchallengeable in the US media."
This intellectual infection is epidemic and nearly complete. Even otherwise healthily skeptical authors such as those found at Washington Monthly and American Prospect feel obliged to preface any remarks remotely hinting of cold analysis regarding Iran with disclaimers such as "of course, Iran is a menace" and the like. It is exactly this sort of compliant equivocation that permitted the administration to land us in the Iraq fiasco.
Rather than "representation", why not call it what it really is: "national psychosis" or perhaps "cultural dementia".
"The "representation" of Iran as a nuclear power, when it just has a couple hundred centrifuges (you need thousands) and is not proven even to have a weapons program, is becoming powerful and unchallengeable in the US media."
This intellectual infection is epidemic and nearly complete. Even otherwise healthily skeptical authors such as those found at Washington Monthly and American Prospect feel obliged to preface any remarks remotely hinting of cold analysis regarding Iran with disclaimers such as "of course, Iran is a menace" and the like. It is exactly this sort of compliant equivocation that permitted the administration to land us in the Iraq fiasco.
Rather than "representation", why not call it what it really is: "national psychosis" or perhaps "cultural dementia".
Gotta agree with Endee here. One of the biggest problems with American politics over the course of the Twentieth Century and to-day has been the role that intellectuals, officially recognised and self-styled alike, have played in creating and driving policy debates, and the one involving Timmerman sounds like no exception to that sorry rule.
Can't say I know anything about Timmerman nor Iran's nuclear programme. However, I don't trust the immense amount of propaganda being churned out about the issue here.
As for the Iranian side of the debate, well, I imagine that a lot of propaganda's comin' from that end too.
But, if the Americans and British think that attacking Iran will be a complete walk-over, well, maybe I'm wrong here, but I think they're settin' themselves up for a very hard fall.
you wanna know the real timmerman? he is a fake and a coward. to know more about the iran issue, learn more about trita parsi and the national iranian american council (niac). timmerman wrote some articles defaming niac, and here was niac's response: http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=744&Itemid=59
Post a Comment
<< Home