Rumblings about the nascent peril of
Islamic fundamentalism began after the 1979 Iranian revolution that overthrew
the brutal US-backed monarchy of the Shah & replaced it with an Islamic
republic under Ayatollah Khomeini. It was a popular revolution against an
extremely brutal, corrupt regime functioning as a US proxy in the region. For
several reasons, including the weakness of revolutionary leadership, the ruling
elite of Iran was able to salvage the state under the guise of religion and
prevent the popular revolution from advancing further.
The events of 9/11 in New York City moved
Islamic fundamentalism from rumblings in academia to a centerpiece of US
war propaganda. And yet, in those many years there is little agreement among
scholars and journalists on what exactly Islamic fundamentalism, often called
Islamism, represents, other than paramilitary violence. That problem is
compounded because so many analysts are beholden to US militarism--which is
best served by ambiguity and obscurantism.
Of course, now we are told the peril grows
and the spread of Islamic fundamentalism encompasses the Middle East as well as
South Asia and Africa, especially with the emergence of Boko Haram and
Al-Shabaab.
US and European regimes foster the
explanation that Islamism is rooted in the Qu'ran, that violent extremism is
the political expression of Islamic theology. This generates Islamophobic
hysteria making military intervention acceptable. But other explanations have
been offered, including radical commentators who see it as anti-imperialism
gone awry and a misguided way of coping with colonialism among religious
Muslims. We can dispense with contempt the often-cited explanations of evolutionary
psychologists who see it as hormonal and genetic to the biology of men--the
"warrior psychology."
The religious character of Islamic
paramilitary groups is disputed by Muslims with deep roots in the history of
Islamic scholarship who claim fundamentalist xenophobia, violence, misogyny,
autocracy, and sectarianism are right-wing appendages having nothing to do with
Islamic theology or practice. The extremists are much more likely schooled in
the sectarian political conflicts between Sunni and Shia than in scriptural
exegesis. And of course that sectarian conflict is exacerbated and fomented by
operatives from the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to serve their political
purposes.
If Islam is a legitimizing factor and not
the inspiration of fundamentalism, then is it anti-imperialism gone awry? Tis a
peculiar form of anti-imperialism that is armed to the teeth with billions of
dollars in armaments, including tanks, Humvees, AK-47s, rocket and grenade
launchers, anti-tank weapons, howitzers for launching explosives, anti-aircraft
guns and missiles, infrared homing surface to air missiles, and machine guns.
If we follow the armament trail back to the supply sources--and there is no
question US, Saudi, Israeli, and Iranian operatives have done that--we will see
who these fundamentalists politically serve--although the standard explanation
is the weapons were confiscated from the retreating Iraqi army.
Some political writers characterize Islamic
fundamentalist groups from the Taliban to the Islamic State as fascists because
of their extreme barbarism and autocratic rule. The term fascism is now used
epithetically but historically that designation was not just about the scale of
brutality but about the relationship of paramilitary groups and goon squads to
state power. In German, Italian, and Spanish fascism, the state bankrolled the
goon squads. It isn't certain what purpose is served by characterizing the
Islamic State as fascist when the term is used so indiscriminately today. In
many ways, the Islamic State has analogs in Zionist groups like the Irgun and
other paramilitary thug squads who violently laid siege to Palestine with the
support of European regimes.
What can be said with absolute certainty
about the political character of the Islamic State and other fundamentalist
goon squads is that they are a counterrevolutionary force in the Middle East
and Africa. In that regard, they are a phalanx of US and European
military strategy in the region--which explains their early connections to the
US military and why they are armed to the teeth. Whether or not they are under
direct imperialist sponsorship, their role is to divide Islam along religious
lines and exacerbate sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia; create
dissension and fracture the unity of ethnic groups; destabilize the region so
that US bombers have an excuse to enter the fray.
For decades, the US has successfully worked
with fundamentalists in several countries, including most notably Saudi Arabia,
Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood), Afghanistan and Pakistan (the Taliban and
Mujahaddin), Somalia, and elsewhere. But the US cannot work with popular
revolutions like the Arab uprisings, the Intifada of Palestinians, or the Kurds
who defended Kobanî with arms.
It cannot be said the US exhibits a
coherent, consistent strategy in the region because they are playing a
dangerous game, jockeying the contending forces of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel,
Syria, Egypt, and the Islamic State against popular revolution. Their strategy
is necessarily improvised. They have to feed the propaganda front
claiming they are militarily battering the Islamic State; they have to make
sure those armaments get through the supply lines. They have to extemporize a
strategy for fighting the Islamic State in Iraq to maximize the Sunni-Shia
civil conflict and another strategy for Syria to maintain the barbaric Assad
regime.
The monkey wrench in all of this chaos is
Palestinian Intifada which explains the extreme barbarism of Israel in Gaza and
the US military support for Israel. Intifada stands as a symbol of
revolutionary hope against the counterrevolutionary despair of the Islamic
State. Netanyahu repeatedly attempts to equate Hamas in Gaza to the Islamic
State but despite the political problems of Hamas, it is Israel that is best
served by the Islamic State and counterrevolution. No matter what the rhetoric
out of the White House, that barbarism is not at odds with US neoliberal
strategy in the Middle East. The proxy bombing of Yemen is to destroy the
popular revolution just as the Saudi and Pakistan military in league with the
US and UK are trying to do in Bahrain, and as the Sisi regime in league with
the US Pentagon did in Egypt.
The tragic dimension in all this is the
disintegration of the radical and socialist movements that could provide
political analyses, alternative programs for action, and political challenge to
counterrevolutionary violence. The democracy and social transformation that
millions fought for in the Arab uprisings are being swept into the vortex of
counterrevolution and discredited as an exercise in futility. That makes the
struggle of the Palestinians that much more important. Because still they
stand.
We do not have to stand idle rueing for the
good old days of Arab revolution. We can continue to educate, agitate,
and organize to oppose US and European intervention into the region, including
against the Islamic State; we can build the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions
movement against Israel. The Arab revolutions have been set back and maybe for
a while; but they have not been unalterably defeated. The deciding element will
be international solidarity with the forces of democracy and social
transformation.
Long live the Arab revolutions! Long live
Palestinian Intifada!
0 Comments
