Both neocons and realists deploy an Islamic threat frame serving shared US dominance

Evidence

Chapter 4 on the foreign policy establishment demonstrated that the “Islamic threat” has been mobilized by both the neocon and realist camps. Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and South/Central Asians are deemed “good” or “bad” depending on whether they are for or against US aims—in other words, through the logic of imperial ethnocentric racism. While the neocons and liberal interventionists disagree on tactics and strategy, they are united in a shared vision of US global dominance. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 744

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels the vault’s existing claims (Aziz, Rana, Razack) that threat-framing is bipartisan imperial policy rather than a conservative distortion. — connects to: Realist and neocon foreign policy camps differ in tactics not imperial goals — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 463; Neocons recruit non-Western voices to delegitimize Muslim critiques of US policy; Neocons recruit Muslim ‘native informers’ to delegitimize Muslim criticism of US policy — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 676 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Liberal imperialists and neocons both frame Islamism as the new totalitarianism requiring Western expungement #corroborates (0.90) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 570
• Neocons replaced the Soviet enemy with an Islamic civilizational threat #expands (0.85)
• Neocons needed Islam as a unifying substitute for the USSR enemy #expands (0.85)
• Both US parties frame Islamism as a new totalitarian enemy #qualifies (0.80)
• Political Islam framing is debated among US foreign policy elites of both parties #complicates (0.75)
• Evangelical leaders manufactured Islamic threat perceptions to inflate their own power #contradicts (0.70) — Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne, 508