State of Terror

“Tick, tick, tick.”

The plot of State of Terror is a relentless rush to prevent a bomb at in the United States. The novel directly addresses the urgency of the bomb threat, incorporating the ticking clock into the prose of the novel. Every second counts for Ellen and Anahita as they try to save lives, so staccato interruptions like “tick, tick, tick” (39) remind the reader of the pressing nature of the problem. Just as the characters cannot ignore the ticking timer, the timer itself intrudes on the prose and forces the reader to remember the imminent deadline.

“Secretary Adams was remaking the office of the Secretary of State. In every way.”

Ellen’s appointment as secretary of state allows her to challenge the paradigms and systems of the country she loves. As a woman in a position of power, she experiences institutional sexism and must overcome a hurdle which is not placed before her male counterparts. However, Ellen plans to reform the entire office in a more progressive, more equal fashion. Her plans to remodel the position of secretary of state are embodied in the physical metaphor of her actual office. Just as she is completely remodeling the office, she plans to remodel the cultural conception of what it means to be a woman in a position of power.

“At least you tried.”

For the characters, the stakes at play could not be higher. They must stop the terrorist plot or thousands of people will die. In this context, simply trying is not enough. Characters may tell one another that they can take solace in that they at least “tried” (57) to resolve the situation, but they are keenly aware that this is not enough. The subtext of the comment is evident as no one takes the sentiment to heart. With so many lives at risk, characters know that they need to do more than just try. They simply must succeed.

“Ellen wanted to believe that Shah had simply taken advantage of the tragedy to sow doubt.”

Ellen tells herself a comforting story, even though she does not believe that it is entirely true. Rather than acknowledge the terrifying reality that she has an ongoing vendetta with an international terrorist, Ellen wants to believe that Shah is opportunistic rather than all-powerful. If she accepts her actual belief and acknowledges that Shah killed her husband, then she will struggle to be as effective in the fight against him. Ellen deliberately embraces a story she does not believe as a practical way to move forward without being overwhelmed.

“If this tore her family apart completely, so be it.”

Ellen and Gil’s relationship is strained but Ellen accepts she must make personal sacrifices to save the lives of others. Having witnessed the aftermath of the bombs, Ellen is completely committed to stopping future attacks. She is not only willing to sacrifice her life to do so, but also to sacrifice the things which give her life meaning. Ellen is willing to tear apart her own family to save other people, illustrating the selflessness and the dedication she has to her position.

“Listening to this dignified man, and watching his devastated daughter, Ellen Adams felt a pang of shame.”

Ellen is a powerful politician and the former head of a media empire. For her, reducing events to abstractions would be easy. A bomb attack can seem like a news report or a result of political miscalculations. However, Ellen is confronted with the human cost of the bomb attacks. When she meets those who have lost loved ones or sees the bodies in the street, Ellen is not able to reduce events to an abstract idea with an easy solution. She is more emotionally engaged with the stark reality of the situation because she witnesses the heavy toll that her mistakes have on innocent people.

“An empty vessel into which these men and women have poured their ambitions, their outrages, their hatreds and insecurities.”

Former President Dunn is presented as a symptom of an underlying disease in American society rather than the disease itself. He functions as the manifestation of a maelstrom of cynicism and hate, becoming an outlet for all the negative emotion and dissatisfaction that have built up over the cause of the previous century. Dunn may not recognize his abstract role in society, but he serves to embody the decline of the American empire rather than necessary dictate the course of the decline. He willingly embraces his status as the figurehead of social collapse, mistaking the fury of the public for adoration.

“He just do what he please.”

During an argument with Beecham, Ellen’s personality is expressed through her use of cultural references. While Beecham argues about whether he is John Lennon or Paul McCartney in the president’s reference to the music group The Beatles, Ellen references a line from one of the group’s songs. She mocks Beecham and takes pleasure in outwitting a man she feels is a threat to her country. While Ellen will need to take on Beecham in a more meaningful manner later, this preliminary victory helps her feel superior.

“The propogandist is his own first customer.”

The comment on Hamilton’s role as a propagandist for the government holds a mirror to American culture and compels the reader to ask questions about the role of fanaticism in society. Like Dunn’s press secretary, the religious fundamentalists are their own “first customer” (137). They share the blinkered dedication to a violent cause, showing how religious zealotry or unbound fanaticism are not limited to one culture, race, or idea. Instead, the propagandists of the world are sincere in their beliefs, convincing others to buy into their violent ideas.

“I did it to help, not to hurt Iran.”

Zahara revealed an Iranian terrorist plot to the American intelligence agencies, and she insists that she did so out of patriotic duty. Zahara’s interpretation of patriotism is akin to an interpretation of Islam. She disagrees with the way people are interpreting the idea and purpose of Iran as a nation, so she wants to do something to correct this. Just like a scholar disagreeing over the interpretation of a religious prescription, Zahara offers a different interpretation of Iranian patriotism. Patriotism and religion are presented as similar abstract concept, capable of motivating great and terrible actions while remaining resistant to simplification.

“The first senior American official to set foot in Iran since President Carter in 1979.”

Ellen is well-aware of her place in history, but the nature of the circumstances mean that she is denied the opportunity to pause and consider the importance of her actions. Not only is she breaking new ground and challenging conventions by being a female secretary of state, but she is also stepping outside of the accepted boundaries of American foreign policy. She acts in ways that other politicians have not done for years, but the ramifications and the significance of her actions pass by too quickly. Despite the importance of Ellen’s actions, she is not permitted to appreciate the pioneering nature of what she is doing. Ellen makes history but is not able to pause to reflect on the new world which she is creating.

“We shall see who achieves it first.”

While meeting with the president of Iran, Ellen engages in a careful tête-à-tête which tests her diplomatic skills. In conversations with other characters, she has spoken about the misogyny and the violence employed by the Iranian state to control its citizens. When she meets with President Nasseri, however, he reminds her that misogyny is not a uniquely Iranian problem. As Ellen’s own experiences have shown, misogynistic attitudes are alive and well in the United Stated political system. Furthermore, elements within the government are trying to usher in a repressive and violent regime. For all of Ellen’s criticism of Iran’s political system, she is shown that her criticisms are made with some degree of hypocrisy.

“It was a calculated risk, and Ellen was about to find out if her calculations were correct.”

As the terrorist plot rushes toward its climax, Ellen is forced to gamble. She makes one “calculated risk” (173) after another, gambling not only with individual lives but with the diplomatic relations of nation states. The stakes involved in Ellen’s gambles continue to be raised as she has no other choice but to push forward. The scale of the stakes and the lack of alternative choices reflect the desperation of the situation. Ellen trusts herself to make these calculated risks, but she acknowledges that luck and hope are vital to her survival, as well as the survival of many others.

“For a moment Betsy thought it was from Ellen in Tehran, but quickly realized it was from Whitehead.”

Betsy is operating in a place where even a momentary lapse of concentration could dictate the course of world history. If Betsy sends the message to Whitehead, rather than Ellen, she fears that she might hinder the quest to stop the terrorist bombs, as she believes that Whitehead may be a traitor. Her quick realization is a moment of relief, but also a dread-inducing realization of the fine margins available to her. The smallest mistake can have huge ramifications, so Betsy must work even harder to ensure that she gets everything exactly right.

“And while lives would end, life went on.”

Katherine distinguishes between individual lives and the society itself. Individuals can live and die in a moment, but the society itself endures beyond the lifetime of a single person. As such, Katherine and her mother are not just working to save individual lives but the existence of a social fabric. They wish to preserve American life for the benefit of the individuals who experience it. By acknowledging this subtle difference between lives and life, Katherine demonstrates that she understands the full ramifications of her actions and the desperate need to succeed.

“If torture would get the information out of him, might save thousands of lives, then bring it on.”

As the crisis mounts, some people begin to lose sight of their moral certainty. President Williams advocates for the use of torture against Whitehead in the hope that he will learn the location of the bombs.

“Had he seen too many young men and women die, while others profited?”

The horrors of the war in Afghanistan make Ellen wonder what caused Whitehead to turn against his country. Later, however, she learns that Whitehead never turned against America. As such, her speculation about probable causes reveals the futility of trying to empathize with an absurd point of view. Ellen projects meaning and consequence onto events without knowing the full facts. Her projections are flawed, as they are based on false information. Rather than learning more about Whitehead, Ellen’s speculation reveals more about her own desperate attempts to project meaning onto a chaotic world.

“Knowing full well what was probably awaiting them.”

The soldiers plunge deeper into the abandoned factory, even though they are taking part in a mission which is clearly doomed to fail. However, they continue anyway. Their raid on the factory functions as a metaphor for Ellen’s actions. She continues past the point of failure, refusing to give up just because her mission seems doomed to fail. Like the soldiers, Ellen feels a patriotic responsibility to continue with her mission no matter what.

“They’ve found a body in the basement, wired with explosives.”

Islamabad. The body is wired with explosives, meaning that it will kill anyone who tries to move or identify the corpse. This trap laid by Shah is a metaphor for Ellen’s pursuit of the terrorist scientist. If she is too rash or too curious, she will fall right into the trap he has set for her. Ellen must be always careful and suspicious, otherwise she will trigger the explosive consequences of Shah’s multi-faceted plan.

“Her legs and feet, in low heels, were beginning to freeze, and she could no longer feel her face.”

The weather in Russia punishes Ellen from the moment she steps off the plane. The environment becomes a metaphor for the danger she is about to face. Ivanov is such an intelligent, ruthless opponent that everything around her becomes a threat. This use of pathetic fallacy—in which the characters’ environment functions as a metaphor for their emotional state—reminds the audience of the danger facing Ellen and the fearless way in which she refuses to give up.

“What was taking root right here, on American soil.”

The closer Ellen gets to the resolution of the crisis, the more she realizes that the true problem comes from within. Like the High-Level Informant and the bomb beneath the White House, the threat to America is buried deep. The existence of the conspiracy and the terrorist threat are manifestations of problems which are already deeply rooted into American society, caused by American citizens and their dissatisfaction far more than any terrorist from abroad. Ellen realizes that if she wants to stop future terrorist attacks, she will need to deal with the social problems in American society rather than simply go abroad and shoot terrorists.

“Betsy sat at Ellen’s kitchen table, in the pool of sunshine streaming through the windows, and watched.”

As events reach a dramatic conclusion, a stark contrast is shown between the eerie calm of Ellen’s kitchen and the chaos of the Oval Office. Betsy is forced to watch events on a live streamed video. She sits in an empty kitchen as the sunlight pours in through the window. In most circumstances, the kitchen would be a relaxed symbol of domestic calm and the warmth of the sun would be comforting. Instead, Betsy is entirely engrossed in the video of the office where a nuclear bomb could explode at any minute. The contrast between settings shows how events in the Oval Office threaten to destroy any chance of a quiet, calm domestic life.

“Do you think Washington, Jefferson, any of the Founding Fathers would recognize this country?”

Stenhauser appeals to the moral authority of the past to justify her actions. In her opinion, the Founding Fathers of the United States would be horrified by the modern world. Of course, her argument is flawed; the moral standards of the past include ideas that most characters including Stenhauser may find objectionable such as the lack of universal suffrage and the existence of slavery. Stenhauser’s reference to the past is not a direct reference to the moral reality of the Founding Father. Instead, the Founding Father represent an idealized version of the past which she uses as justification for her actions. Stenhauser might present herself as a ruthless, rational advocate for a return to a previous way of life, but her arguments are so twisted and flawed that she seems as insane as Shah or any other villain in the novel.