Effectivement, nous sommes particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par la question de l’impact psychologique de la crise iranienne, de la crise iranienne per\u00e7ue comme un \u00abprocessus de probation, de v\u00e9rification d’une \u00e9volution<\/em> [psychologique] brutale et radicale<\/em>\u00bb que nous aurions subie ces neuf derniers mois, comme nous l’\u00e9crivions dans notre F&C<\/em> du 24 juin 2009<\/a>. Pour cette raison, nous signalons ce texte d’un professeur de litt\u00e9rature de Yale, David Bromwich, sur Huffington.post<\/em>, ce m\u00eame 24 juin 2009<\/a>. (Certes, il nous importe beaucoup que Bromwich soit professeur de litt\u00e9rature, plut\u00f4t que professeur de relations internationales ou professeur de droit international; la mati\u00e8re, ici, confirme l’esprit et sugg\u00e8re la forme d’esprit qu’il faut aussi avoir pour aller au vrai cur des probl\u00e8mes envisag\u00e9s.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBromwich aborde effectivement cette question essentielle pour notre<\/strong> psychologie de la d\u00e9couverte du visage de l’autre, dans les rues de T\u00e9h\u00e9ran, tel que ce visage nous est apparu, puisqu’il a bien fallu le regarder, puisqu’il para\u00eet que le sort de toutes nos valeurs \u00e9videmment universelles se joue \u00e9galement dans les rues de T\u00e9h\u00e9ran. Le probl\u00e8me est \u00e9videmment que l’autre, il y a fort peu de temps, \u00e9tait l’Ennemi qu’il importait de d\u00e9truire, de bombarder, de briser, d’une fa\u00e7on absolument aveugle. Bromwich observe cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de l’humanisation de l’Iran, y compris et surtout pour ce cas l’Iran qui conteste le pouvoir iranien, avec cette autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9 qui a perdur\u00e9 jusqu’ici du rejet absolu de l’Iran r\u00e9el engendr\u00e9 par notre \u00e9pouvantable automatisme \u00e0 nous ing\u00e9rer dans les affaires des autres comme s’il s’agissait des n\u00f4tres. Pour cette raison, d’ailleurs, l’autre est-il l’Ennemi dans les psychologies malades; s’il n’est plus ennemi, il n’est plus autre et il ne repousse plus notre ing\u00e9rence, au contraire il la sollicite; et quel moyen de rencontrer mieux cette sollicitation que de r\u00e9duire l’Ennemi par le moyen des bombes? Ainsi va la logique enfi\u00e9vr\u00e9e de cette psychologie malade. Ainsi avons-nous contempl\u00e9 l’Iran sans le voir pendant des ann\u00e9es, en le rejetant absolument, en proclamant que nous allions le sauver, pour commencer en le bombardant.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe faces of the people, and not the face of the enemy. The difference between the abstract and the individual is decisive for imagination. It is the faces that are indelible, as we saw in the streets of Tehran, whether the men and women were holding up cell phones or placards written black on green, or waving a bloodied shirt or bandage; or holding a rock, as some in Iran did, and as the members of other crowds, less kindly portrayed in the American press, have been known to do. It isn’t the face of the enemy that we see in these pictures. No, these are people much like ourselves, who don’t want to die at the hands of their government or at the hands of ours, either, for that matter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWe know them from the messages they have sent by Twitter; by the evidence of their large and small sacrifices; by their expressed loyalty to a God whom they invoke in prayers against the abuse of power by their leaders. The faces are peculiar, personal, and counter to expectation; they show an energy of original purpose. I want to live as much as you do, they say.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe large plans for good wars need to reduce the enemy to an abstraction before the bombing feels right. The most famous of American war promoters, John McCain, has a simple and emphatic ability to abstract Iraq, Gaza, Georgia, Iran, it is all one to him. They turn him on and fire him up. Wars, he thinks (and was raised to think), are simply the spectacular way that we settle our affairs in this world. But successful abstraction is a mental trick that is not possible to everyone.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe secular prophets for the bombing of Iran have always known how to perform this trick. They knew long before they fell in love with a fraction of the Iranian people. McCain himself, and Charles Krauthammer and Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman and Alan Dershowitz all are friends of Iran, as they see it. Friends of the Iran of their minds, which will some day replace the enemy Iran. The proof of their friendship is their eagerness to secure a blockade and to bomb.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAnd how these prophets of war loved the protests! Here was the real Iran, yearning to be surgically struck. We will bring these Iranians their freedom, said McCain and the rest, by killing their country. So let us cheer them now, and metaphorically shake their hand by satellite image, before we bomb them for their own sakes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThere was an odd thing, though. With the swell of vicarious protest–the pulse of resistance beating for Iran in American hearts that haven’t for years protested against an abuse of American power–none of the Iranians was saying what the men of our war party took them to be saying. The Iranians were not saying: Please, America, heed our call, and lay down sanctions against us. Starve and debilitate, murder us with black ops’ and lecture and bomb us into your idea of civilization. They seemed to say none of those things. Their message was short and their faces said only what faces can say: Here we are; we, too, are Iran. Now watch us we know what we’re about.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn the absence of local clients in the theatre of action all of Iran seems to offer nothing on the lines of Ahmad Chalabi, no-one that Americans can call our own the McCain gesture has been reduced to a strut. The sham is revealed by the fact that the people who criticize Barack Obama for saying too little today cannot cite the name of a single Iranian dissident who wants the United States to say more (let alone to take an active role). There is not one politician in that country of 70 million who wishes the United States to be his special backer. On the contrary: an American endorsement is death to an Iranian politician. We are, after all, the casualties of our history: our access to oil in the days when Iranians enjoyed no such access, our support for Iraq in its war with Iran, our training of the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, in methods of torture whose victims number between 25,000 and 100,000.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbNor does the curious contrast under the apparent alignment escape the notice of the more observant Iranians today. The American-Iranian journalist Kouross Esmaeli, for example, said on Monday in an interview with Amy Goodman:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe Iranians know Senator John McCain as the man who sang \u00ab\u00a0Bomb, bomb Iran\u00a0\u00bb during the elections of last year. The man holds no credibility as far as supporting Iranians or seeming like he’s got the best interests of the Iranians at heart. <\/em>[] President Obama’s stand, I think, has been the most sensible, and it’s amazing that the President of the United States is taking such a sensible stand<\/em> [] Everyone I’ve talked to in Iran has said the same thing, that we do not need any symbol of Western, especially American, interference in Iran’s internal politics. And the fact that America does not have diplomatic relations with Iran really ties its hands as far as how far he can go in really supporting Iran.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tSans nul doute, l’humanisation de l’Iran \u00e0 nos propres yeux, c’est-\u00e0-dire pour notre propre psychologie, est un fait fondamental de la crise iranienne. Elle l’est \u00e9videmment, dirions-nous, beaucoup plus pour nous que pour l’Iran. Elle \u00e9claire par contraste notre inhumanit\u00e9 courante, qui est devenue la marque de notre humanisme, celui que recommandent nos divers proph\u00e8tes; elle \u00e9claire par contraste combien nous nous sommes habitu\u00e9s \u00e0 observer et \u00e0 traiter les autres avec une totale inhumanit\u00e9, au nom de notre humanisme sans aucun doute, \u00e0 traiter dans le sens large du mot, mais aussi, dans le sens militaire \u00e0 plus d’une occasion, comme l’on traite un objectif. La chose est tellement plus importante que nos d\u00e9bats sur le respect de la d\u00e9mocratie et des droits de l’homme chez les autres, nous qui savons si habilement les tourner chez nous, \u00e0 notre fa\u00e7on, tr\u00e8s postmoderne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa question qui nous importe \u00e9galement, et sur laquelle nous nous sommes exprim\u00e9s hier<\/a>, est bien de savoir si nous aurions \u00e9t\u00e9 capables d’une telle perception il y a un an, ou deux ans d’ici, et si un McCain eut \u00e9t\u00e9 effectivement aussi ridicule, jusqu’\u00e0 para\u00eetre exprimer \u00aba tremendous pathological narcissism<\/em>\u00bb, qu’il l’est aujourd’hui<\/a>. Notre r\u00e9ponse, on l’a lu, est clairement n\u00e9gative. Des chocs fondamentaux, \u00e0 commencer par celui de la crise du 15 septembre 2008 qui fait vaciller tous les fondements de nos certitudes bien au-del\u00e0 des seuls domaines financier et \u00e9conomique, ont constitu\u00e9 la th\u00e9rapie de choc qui nous conduit \u00e0 de telles transformations de la perception. La crise iranienne est, par cons\u00e9quent et effectivement, par ce biais inattendu que d\u00e9crit \u00e9galement Bromwich, le miroir de la crise fondamentale de notre civilisation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 25 juin 2009 \u00e0 06H58<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Effectivement, nous sommes particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par la question de l’impact psychologique de la crise iranienne, de la crise iranienne per\u00e7ue comme un \u00abprocessus de probation, de v\u00e9rification d’une \u00e9volution [psychologique] brutale et radicale\u00bb que nous aurions subie ces neuf derniers mois, comme nous l’\u00e9crivions dans notre F&C du 24 juin 2009. Pour cette raison, nous… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[8424,8423,3423,3081,8422,2773,4063,3099],"class_list":["post-70859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-autre","tag-bromwich","tag-civilisation","tag-ennemi","tag-humanisation","tag-iran","tag-mccain","tag-psychologie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}