Digital Mind 🧠

🪵 The Threshold

Imperial alignment outweighs democratic conduct in US labeling of leaders

Properties2
tagsja-picks, causal_relationships, singleton, xref, category/causal-relationships
aliases@kumar_islamophobia_2012, loc. 406

4 min read

Imperial alignment outweighs democratic conduct in US labeling of leaders

Evidence

In Chapters 4 and 5, I study the foreign policy establishment and its attitudes toward the “Islamic threat.” Chapter 4 discusses the shifting, zigzagging attitudes toward “good” and “bad” Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and Afghans. These constructions are the product of imperial ethnocentric racism because the good/bad designation flows from whether one supports or opposes US policy and empire. Moreover, one can easily go from “good” to “bad.” The chapter also outlines the debate between the two main wings within the foreign policy establishment: the neoconservatives and the liberal interventionists. While the two disagree on whether to confront or accommodate the “Islamic threat,” they are united in their unreserved support for Pax Americana, a global system dominated by the United States. These two approaches within the political class have led to two strands of Islamophobia: conservative and liberal. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 87 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the pivotal moment that shifted US attitudes against what the West soon labeled “Islamic fundamentalism.” The popular revolt successfully toppled the US-backed Shah, who had ruled with an iron fist. The revolution was the product of deep discontent among workers, students, peasants, and traders (or bazaaris) against the Shah. Iran’s workers, in particular its oil workers, were the key muscle that brought the Shah down, but were unable to play an independent role. This allowed Khomeini to maneuver between various factions over the course of two years and finally to take power for the Islamic Republican Party, as historian Nikki Keddie and others have argued. When Khomeini took over the leadership of the revolution and established what he called an Islamic state, it provided inspiration to organizations of political Islam in the region, who saw their hopes and dreams realized. The United States ratcheted up the negative “Islam” frame. “Bad” Muslims had overthrown the “good” secular Shah. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration armed Iran during its war with Iraq, in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Further, in the context of the Cold War, the US cultivated other Islamist formations in a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and the United States armed and trained the Afghan mujahideen rebels, who policymakers viewed as advancing imperial interests. Al-Qaeda emerged out of the mujahideen. Thus began a period of contradiction when “Islam” was both a positive and negative construct depending on whether actors supported or militated against US imperial aims. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 395 (#expands, via linked claim)

Indeed, despite rhetoric about spreading democracy, the government’s track record shows a clear preference for bases in undemocratic and often despotic states such as Qatar and Bahrain. — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 33 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: US policy treated Islam as good or bad depending on imperial alignment — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 395; U.S. basing favors despotic states over democratic ones — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 33; Liberal Muslim-American leaders were co-opted into rebranding imperial policy — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 496 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

✉️

Backlinks