HI Talks - Amerika Serikat dalam Arsitektur Perang Epistemik Israel dan Iran

Summary

In this discussion, Arthur Jefferson Maya critiques the dominant narrative surrounding the Israel-Iran conflict, emphasizing how power and knowledge shape global perceptions. He explores how Iran's calls for de-escalation are ignored, while the narrative of Iran's nuclear threat is amplified by the U.S. and Israel. Maya introduces concepts like subjugated knowledge, problematization, and dividing practice to reveal how media manipulation and strategic labeling (Israel as democratic, Iran as a threat) justify military and political actions. He concludes that knowledge production is inherently linked to power, with hegemonic narratives controlling the discourse around international conflicts.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Israeli attack on Iran highlights the role of power in shaping narratives, where certain perspectives are suppressed and others are amplified.
• 😀 Iran's calls for de-escalation and peace have been largely ignored in global media, while the focus has been on portraying Iran as a nuclear threat.
• 😀 The concept of *subjugated knowledge* explains how alternative narratives, like Iran's, are marginalized and silenced in favor of hegemonic discourses.
• 😀 The role of the United States in the conflict is epistemic, meaning it shapes the global narrative without direct military involvement, influencing public opinion and policy.
• 😀 Problem framing is crucial: U.S. and Israeli narratives frame the nuclear issue as an existential threat, constructing a crisis to justify military action.
• 😀 Trump's 60-day ultimatum to Iran served as a precursor to the Israeli strike, creating a time-bound pressure that led to military aggression.
• 😀 The categorization of countries as either 'allies' or 'enemies' is central to the creation of political and military strategies, with Israel labeled as a democratic ally and Iran as a dangerous threat.
• 😀 Dividing practice simplifies complex geopolitical situations by classifying countries into categories that justify the actions of hegemonic powers.
• 😀 The narrative of Israel as a democracy and Iran as an authoritarian regime underpins the justification for military action and sanctions against Iran.
• 😀 The power of knowledge does not only create truths but also eliminates opposing narratives, as seen in the global media's treatment of Iran's stance and actions in the conflict.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the speaker's discussion in the transcript?

The main focus is on the geopolitical situation surrounding the Israeli attack on Iran, the role of the United States in shaping narratives, and the epistemic implications of how knowledge is created and controlled in international relations.

How does the speaker explain the concept of 'subjugated knowledge'?

The speaker uses 'subjugated knowledge' to refer to narratives or information that are marginalized or suppressed by dominant powers. In this context, Iran's statements regarding its desire to avoid further conflict are subjugated, while a hegemonic narrative about Iran's nuclear threat dominates global discourse.

What does the speaker mean by 'problematization' in the context of international relations?

Problematization refers to how certain issues or narratives are framed as problems by dominant powers. The speaker uses the example of the nuclear threat from Iran, which is framed as an existential crisis by the U.S. and Israel, even though alternative narratives from Iran are ignored.

Why does the speaker believe the United States plays an 'epistemic' role in the conflict between Israel and Iran?

The speaker argues that while the U.S. is not directly involved in military action, it plays an epistemic role by shaping the narrative surrounding the conflict, particularly through its political and media influence. The U.S. frames Iran's nuclear ambitions as a global threat, which affects international perceptions.

What is the significance of the June 13, 2025 date mentioned by the speaker?

June 13, 2025 is highlighted as the day Israel opens a second front in its conflict with Iran, which follows a 60-day ultimatum issued by President Trump. This timing is seen as significant in understanding the political and military maneuvers at play, and the speaker views it as part of the broader U.S. strategy.

How does the speaker critique the media's portrayal of the conflict?

The speaker criticizes the media for framing Israel's actions as self-defense, while downplaying or ignoring the role of the United States in shaping the conflict's narrative. This, according to the speaker, leads to a biased portrayal of events that supports hegemonic power structures.

What does 'dividing practice' mean in the context of this discussion?

'Dividing practice' refers to the categorization and labeling of countries or actors, which simplifies the international narrative for hegemonic powers. In this case, Israel is labeled as a democracy and Iran as an authoritarian regime, which makes it easier to justify extreme policies or actions, such as military intervention or sanctions.

How does the speaker describe the role of knowledge production in international relations?

The speaker argues that knowledge production is not neutral; it is influenced by power dynamics. Dominant powers create and promote certain narratives while suppressing others, which in turn affects global policies and actions. In this case, the labeling of Iran as a threat is a form of knowledge production that serves the interests of hegemonic countries.

What is the connection between the 'regime of truth' and the conflict discussed?

The 'regime of truth' refers to how power structures create and enforce certain truths that align with their interests. In the case of the Israeli-Iranian conflict, the U.S. has shaped the narrative that Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a threat, while ignoring Iran's own narrative of wanting to avoid further conflict.

What does the speaker mean by labeling a country as 'dangerous' and why is it important?

Labeling a country as 'dangerous,' like Iran in this case, is part of the hegemonic discourse that justifies aggressive actions, such as military strikes or sanctions. This classification helps create a justification for imposing international control or punishment on that country, in this case, by the U.S. and its allies.