The alleged revelations of the NIE that Iran ceased its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003 has some arguing that Iran should no longer be seen as a threat and others warning that Iran remains a grave danger to the world stage. At the center of many of these assessments of Iran may be an interpretive framework that sees Iran as either "a threat" or "not a threat," a framework that interprets Iran in so far as it fits within the term "threat" and presents Iran only in terms of its relationship to us. The danger of such a binary framework is that it reduces the meaning of Iran--a meaning that is itself incalculably complex and constantly in flux--to our own limited understanding of Iran. In short, we reduce the other to our idea of the other, to ourselves.
Ali A. Allawi thought that this failure to see the other beyond our own projects and understanding led to many of the disasters of the Iraq War. We didn't understand Iraq as it was in itself, and therefore we were oblivious to even likely consequences of our invasion. Being something of the postmodern type, I don't think we can know nations,or anything for that matter, as they are in themselves, which is why we ought to interpret in a spirit of humility and hospitality, welcoming the other as he, she, or it truly is but realizing that we don't see that totality of meaning. When relating to countries like Iran, we ought to strive to understand them as best we can, but in awareness that Iran is more than we understand it to be, certainly more than a mere "threat" or "not-a-threat."
This is not to say that real threats do not exist; it is to say the threat is always more than a threat, and an accurate interpretation would account for more meaning in the threat than its threatening relation to us, whether that threat be another nation or, say, from an author of children's books.
Pages
