Criticizing the Islamic Republic differs fundamentally from serving neoconservative empire

Evidence

Criticizing the calamity of the Islamic Republic—and recognizing the heroism of a nation that first invested its hope in it and now is fighting it to the bitter end—is a legitimate and even urgent project. But shamelessly joining the neoconservative takeover of the democratic institutions of the United States by helping to build a literary canon for a predatory empire is an entirely different matter. The former restores dignity and hope to a nation and its national resistance to imperial domination; the latter seeks to steal such dignity and hope. — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 395

Categorization

• XREF: Offers a usable distinction parallel to the one the reader already curates in ‘On Sacrifice’ and other pieces between legitimate critique of a regime and complicity with imperial framing.

Related

• Criticizing the Iranian regime can mask an attack on Islam in general (similarity 0.79)