America’s Freedom Dilemma for the Middle East: Interests or Democracy?

Abstract

Few subjects stimulate a more ferocious debate in Washington than the issue of how to deal with political Islam and whether the United States should engage with ‘Islamist’ movements. Whilst in the past these were largely considered to be academic questions, with little policy relevance, in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 they have become central themes in discussions of US-Middle East and North African (MENA) relations. Notably, they are central to a debate that has all too often been conducted with a focus on what have been termed ‘radical’, ‘extremist’, ‘nationalist’ or ‘Islamofascist’ groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic government of Iran, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Hamas) in the Palestinian territories, or Hizbullah in Lebanon. That is to say that political Islam and the term ‘Islamists’ have often been conflated solely with groups that view violence as a legitimate recourse for their political grievances and the maintenance of power, but who articulate such methods with Islamic referents — terms, symbols, configurative emplotment1 of events and actors — in their espoused ideological-discursive formations.KeywordsForeign PolicyMiddle EastArab WorldBush AdministrationForeign AssistanceThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.