The Language of Politics

Overview of Maps:

The two maps that I composed capture the two leading oppositional arguments of the Iranian nuclear acquisition conflict. The first, "The West's point of view", outlines the reasons why the west, led by the United States, is antagonistic to any type of Iranian enrichment program. Even if the Iranians claim the project to be peaceful, the argument follows, by their very nature they are likely to ignore rationality or negotiations and still pursue the "weaponization" of nuclear material. While this may very well be the case (as outlined in the other map, "Iran's point of view"), the west's argument is that this would pose a serious threat to the "global community". What they mean by "global community", or the west, is essentially the international order developed by 500 years of imperialism. Today nuclear diplomacy is one of the main avenues through which today's "global community" pursue's its imperial ambitions. However, this "global community", for relatively obvious reasons, does not put it's argument in those terms. At an essentialist level, the west's argument is based on the discourse of orientalism, which characterizes the 'oriental', in this case the Iranian, as a child-like/unrational being who only responds to aggression or material reward. At a particularist level, the west's argument centers around Iran's obvious "anti-American"/"anti-Israeli" sentiment, without providing an argument that delineates from its essentialist portrayal of the 'oriental' and his relgion, Islam. These arguments, though largely unproven, set the stage for UN Security Council sanctions and possible war. On the other side of the coin, Iran's claims that its intentions are "peaceful" are just as deceiving. Don't believe that Iran only wants nuclear energy; it already has enough oil to power it's economy for years to come, and because of this wouldn't spend so much time on the nuclear issue if it was just for energy. Rather, Iran wants a nuclear weapon so that the West has to engage it diplomatically rather than militarily. In this sense, Iran could point to the west's differentiated dealings with fellow "Axis of Evil" countries, North Korea and Iraq.

In conclusion, this debate is likely to rage on for years, as Iran is still years away from producing a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would pose a serious threat to the "global community" simply because it would lose its hegemony in regards to atomic-diplomacy. Therefore, it may pursue more drastic measures against Iran.