US imperial interests, not Islamist actions, determine Islamist ally or enemy status

Evidence

The one constant underlying the various zigzags in attitudes among the US ruling class is that Islamists were pegged as allies or enemies based on US interests and political hegemony. The debate between confrontationists and accommodationists within the foreign policy establishment does not question the right of the United States to assert its power around the world. Thus, this debate is more aptly characterized as a tactical disagreement between conservative (or, more aptly, neoconservative) and liberal imperialists on how best to realize the aims of empire-building. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 278

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels the reader’s guiding question on which material interest each myth protects, and connects to Grosfoguel’s frame of empire-driven classification. — connects to: US refusal to examine its own Mideast policies enabled future terrorism — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 267; US facilitated Muslim violence when it served Cold War interests — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 288; US power legitimated Islamist dictator Zia while fighting Soviet expansion (+22 more)

Broader Connections

• The same Islamist figures who denounced the US conspired with the CIA against nationalists #exemplifies (0.75) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 370
• Sadat’s regime deliberately cultivated Islamist groups against secularist policies #exemplifies (0.70) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 331
• Islamist groups arise from local conditions, not from anti-American plots #expands (0.60) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 376