Search

In the article, the author examines the relationship of the U.S. with Muslim countries, particularly Iran. Also cited are the murder case involving Iranian Abdul Molavi, who was killed by his American wife, who was later acquitted, the high animosity between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the Iranian government, Trump's Muslim ban, the policymaking strategy of the U.S. toward an Islamic country, as well as the works of several historians on the U.S. relations with Islamic countries, including Heather Sharkey, Henry Gorman, and Matthew Jacobs.

This article focuses on a seeming contradiction between ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘Islamophilic’ approaches in contemporary Western policies and discourses on the Middle East. While Islamophobia continues to shape some domestic policies of Western states and provide ideological justification for the wars they wage abroad, ‘Islamophilic’ tendencies in foreign policy have also emerged, especially in responses to the ‘Arab Spring’. Not clearly noted in Western public discourse, this represents a historical continuation of Western support for Islamism common during the Cold War, but is also a shift from the Islamophobic discourse of the post-cold war period, especially since 9/11. While Islamophobic and Islamophilic discourses may appear to be opposites, the paper argues that they represent two sides of the Orientalist logic, continuing to reduce understanding of Middle Eastern societies and politics to a culturalist dimension. Unlike traditional Orientalism, they treat Middle Eastern people as political subjects, but approach them as defined by their culture and religion. They define ‘moderate’ Islamism as the typical (and preferred) politics of the people of the region. Focusing on specific recent developments, the paper suggests that, rather than paving the way to more peaceful relations with the region or to internal peace and stability there, the Islamophilic shift in Western policy may rather lead to new waves of catastrophes by further destabilising and fragmenting the region, threatening to evoke new waves of Islamophobia in the West. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents a reprint of the article "Pakistan: The Most Dangerous Place in the World," by Dr. Larry P. Goodson, which appeared originally in the "Strategic Studies Institute Newsletter" of the U.S. Army War College. In the article the author discusses the five major reasons that he feels make Pakistan the most dangerous foreign policy problem that the U.S. faces in 2009.

The image of the United States in the Middle East has plummeted dramatically since 9/11. To stem growing anti-Americanism and improve America's image, the U.S. State Department has substantially increased public diplomacy staffs and program funding in selected Middle East countries. Although officials stationed in the Middle East give their public diplomacy operations favorable ratings, the image of the United States remains bad and continues to decline despite occasional upward spikes. In this article the author argues that television entertainment programs, particularly American situation comedies broadcast throughout the Middle East, can be another reason for the continued low regard for Americans and for the United States. An analysis of three American television programs (The West Wing, That 70's Show, and Friends) shows that the images presented by the programs are distorted and portray an unrealistic picture of life in America. The fact that the attitudes of Middle Easterners are more in tune with television drama images than with their more realistic public diplomacy counterparts leads to the conclusion that the shows trump the State Department's public diplomacy efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines U.S. foreign relations with Islamic countries. During the Cold War, U.S. attention on Islamic countries was centered in the Middle East, as was that of the Soviet Union, and relations varied from country to country on ideological or practical grounds of realpolitik. The debate over U.S. foreign policy following the Cold War was altered by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which led to anti-Muslim sentiments in the U.S., and the identification of the terrorists as part of a broader Islamic political movement hostile to U.S. interests. This too has resulted in different policies towards different Islamic countries, with the U.S. allied with Pakistan at the same time it has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Islamic countries whose governments wish to cooperate with the U.S. face strongly adverse public opinion which views the U.S. as a hostile hegemonic power.

The article discusses the attempt by the U.S. government to improve its relationship with the Muslim world through science. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an effort to expand the role of science in diplomacy and assess the potential for scientific partnerships with Muslim-majority countries, named three prominent U.S. scientists as special envoys. Secretary Clinton announced the envoys at a November 3, 2009 meeting in Morocco, which includes an Egyptian- and an Algerian-born scientist. Clinton's speech to the Forum for the Future, which is a group that fosters dialogue between industrialized nations and Muslim-majority countries, built upon a speech given by U.S. president Barack Obama at Cairo University in which he called for better relations with the Muslim world.

The article presents the author's perspective regarding the speech of U.S. President Barack Obama which addresses his outreach to the Islamic and Muslim world particularly to those of Israel-Palestine and Iran. He mentions how Obama endorsed the foreign relation between the U.S. and Israel. He criticizes Obama's effort to reach out to Iran and his commitment to deflect nuclear weapons. He also comments on Obama's suggestion on the religious freedom and tolerance between Sunni and Shia.