by Eldar Mamedov
In his inauguration speech, President Donald Trump vowed to eradicate “radical Islamic terrorism” from the “face of earth.” His top lieutenants have identified the targets of this effort. Rex Tillerson, in his confirmation testimony for secretary of state, lumped together the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or IS), al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and “some elements within Iran”—even though Shia Iran is bitterly opposed to the ultra-Salafist IS and al-Qaeda and, to a lesser degree, the Sunni fundamentalist MB.
Trump’s inner circle – his ideologue-in-chief Steve Bannon and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – seem to have an equally un-discerning view. As Bannon explained, addressing an audience in 2014, “I believe you should take a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam … If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places.”
Yet, apart from such sweeping “clash of civilizations”-type assertions, this ambitious project looks remarkably scant on details. Although Bannon, for example, is very hostile to Saudi Arabia, he has never made his views on Iran known, nor is he on the record showing any understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shia. Flynn is known for his obsessive Iranophobia. And James Mattis, the Defence Secretary sometimes seen as a potentially moderating influence in the Trump cabinet, went as far as to suggest that Iran and IS may somehow be in cahoots.
Bannon and Flynn´s Islamophobia resonates strongly with the similar-minded populist nationalist parties in Europe, for whom this is one key aspect of their revolt against the “globalist elite”. But on Iran, the views seem to be diverging.
The far right’s most powerful European representative is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French National Front and, according to the polls, one of the leading contenders for the presidency in the elections in May 2017. In her role as a member of the European Parliament (EP), Le Pen has expressed some remarkably moderate views about Iran. For example, she tabled a number of amendments to the opinion of the EP’s International Trade Committee on the EU-Iran relations after the nuclear agreement.
One of those amendments removed the original language on Iran’s “self-chosen isolation”—drafted by Marietje Schaake, a Dutch liberal known for her strong criticisms of Iran’s human rights record and regional policies—and replaced it with a statement that the nuclear agreement “makes it possible for European countries to cooperate fully with Iran, to the benefit of all.” Another amendment deplores “the EU interference in Iran’s internal affairs” and reaffirms its right “to make sovereign choices.” In the same vein, she also rejects the notion that the EU has to use its economic leverage on Iran to push for human rights agenda, warning that such an approach could be perceived as “an imposition of Western values and cultural colonization.” In yet another clause, in reference to the existing US sanctions against Iran, Le Pen urges EU member states and the Commission to defend EU companies against the “extraterritorial applications of US law.”
None of these amendments was adopted, since there is an unwritten agreement between the two largest groups in the EP—the center-right Christian Democrats and centre-left Social Democrats—not to vote for amendments tabled by members of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), the far-right group of which Le Pen’s National Front is a founding member. Instead, at a later stage the EP overwhelmingly adopted the moderate and pragmatic report on EU-Iran relations drafted by the British Labour MEP Richard Howitt, a member of the Social Democratic group.
Another far-right member of the EP, Udo Voigt from the German neo-Nazi National Democratic Party, sits on the EP delegation for relations with Iran.
Several reasons might explain the European far right’s apparent fondness for Iran. First, it should be seen as part of a populist repudiation of the “liberal globalist elite,” with its notions of universal human rights and free markets. Like Vladimir Putin´s Russia with its emphasis on “traditional values,” Iran with its system of governance and defiant foreign policy is seen as a perfect embodiment of a challenge to this “elite,” and thus worthy of support. Some European extremists adore the Iranian system precisely for the same reasons that liberals abhor it, such as the widespread use of the death penalty, which they dream of bringing back to Europe.
Second, supporting Iran can be seen as a poke in the eyes of the continental elites enjoying too cozy relations with the Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which the European political class, intelligence services, and general public increasingly acknowledge as sponsors of Wahhabi extremism and blame for terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels.
In the end, however, the far right’s voting record in the EP suggests that for them Iran is more of an instrumental issue rather than a matter of firm convictions. For example, despite all the superficially Iran-friendly rhetoric, most members of the ENF either abstained or voted against the Howitt report (Le Pen herself abstained). Likewise, despite all the Saudi-bashing, Le Pen and two thirds of the ENF voted against the amendment calling on the EU to introduce an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia in the framework of the EP resolution on the humanitarian situation in Yemen adopted in February 2016.
This suggests that the European far right parties are most unlikely to play Iran’s representatives in a nascent transatlantic populist “international.” It seems far likelier that, if the European far right ever reaches the pinnacle of power in an important European country, it will not allow the divergent views on Iran to stand in the way of a common Islamophobic agenda with the likes of Bannon and Flynn, even at the cost of wrecking the nuclear deal. Which is another reason to avoid such a scenario at all costs.
This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament. Photo of Marine Le Pen by Claude Truong-Ngoc via Wikimedia Commons.
Mr. Merrill, I never heard of Project Gladio. Looked it up and see it was a plan for counter-insurgency in the event of USSR invasion and conquest of Western Europe. Sounds like a good plan.
The rest of your post is incoherent rambling and you appear to be a conspiracy buff, if not outright delusional. The CIA does not control ISIS or Al Qaeda and there is no worldwide Jewish or, if you prefer, Zionist conspiracy. Israel has nothing to do with US intervention to try to save one group of Muslims from another group of Muslims nor is Israel responsible for Muslims killed each other any more than Men would be responsible for Orcs killing each other.
It is a mystery why Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups (of which you appear to be a member) have allied with Global Islamists. Maybe it is a marriage of convenience. I’m sure you can explain it. Your blog identifies sites of interest and they are mixture of white supremacists and Islamist sites with the only common thread anti-Zionism (aka anti-Semitism).
Perhaps you can clarify, are you a white nationalist or Islamist or both?
@ Jeffrey Wilens:
I won’t get down in the gutter with your ad hominem attacks. As a lawyer like me, you know they are logical fallacies. Because you looked at my web site, you also know they are false. My web site has nothing to do with neo-nazis, white supremacists, Islamicism, or anti-semitism. I’m an agnostic civil libertarian and my second son is African-American.
What’s left of your comment?
— A Wikipedia-like sanitized view of the Gladio projects that ignores the mountain of documentation backing their reign of terror in Europe. Dig deeper, my friend. The information is there.
— Denial that ISIL and Al Qaeda are U.S. created and controlled. Dig deeper, my friend. It’s well documented.
— Denial of Zionist influence over U.S. government. Read Mearsheimer and Walt on the Israel Lobby for starters.
— Denial that the Israel Lobby has nudged the U.S. into multiple foreign wars in the Mideast. Good grief! Have you already forgotten Israeli efforts to push the U.S. into bombing Iran back into the Stone Age because of its mythical nuclear weapons program? See the article on my web site entitled “A Question about Ron Wyden’s Intelligence” and its supporting linked web pages. Do you seriously contend that the Israel Lobby did not push the U.S. into launching wars in Iraq and Syria?
You’re evading issues rather than tackling them, my friend. That makes it very difficult to have a principled discussion.
Mr. Merrell, I will accept your disavowal of Neo-Nazi and Islamic Jihadi groups. However, there is a third part of the unholy alliance against Israel. Atheist leftists. I say atheist leftists because most Christians (even liberals) have at least a rudimentary understanding and belief in the biblical pronouncement concerning Israel.
That does not make your conspiracy theories any more credible. Unfortunately it is possible to find websites on the Internet promoting even the most outlandish or absurd theories of any kind. But you have not presented any evidence that Gladio was anything other than what I said. Even the Wikipedia article mentions your conspiracy theory and how it is generally discredited.
I suspect you are probably also a 9-11 “truther.” I don’t waste my time debating such people anymore than I waste it debating holocaust deniers.
While the USA did support the Taliban in the 1980’s against the Soviet Union that hardly proves we created Al Qaeda or ISIS. It just shows how utterly stupid it is to try to side with one group of crazy Muslims against another group.
As for your comments about “Zionism,” you seem to be using that as a negative term, which is part of the Neo-Nazi/Muslim tactic. Zionism is a very good thing, it is part of the Bible and part of any Jew’s or Christian’s faith (if he has one). If you don’t believe in Zionism then you don’t believe in the Bible. There is nothing wrong with an atheist like you being anti-Zionist but don’t twist it into something it is not.
Zionism is simply the concept that Jews (like many other people) once had a strong connection to a particular area of land, their ancestral homeland, and that it was both predicted in the Bible but also a matter of legitimate moral right that they be permitted to restore that country in their homeland. If you don’t think Jews have that right at all, but other people do, then it is hard to see how you are not properly classified as an anti-Semite.
On the other hand, if you don’t think Jews or anyone else has the right to any parcel of land, then that leaves might makes right, in which case the Jews won the battle for land.
If you think Muslims should own and control the land because they conquered it (by violent Jihad) in the 7th century, that does not really explain why they can’t be pushed out of some of it.
So to return to your charge that many influential persons in the US government as well as many ordinary citizens support Zionism, that is true. It is because Zionism is good and right. America is a great country built on a concept that is very similar to Zionism and Americans respect countries that overcome adversity and make something beautiful and useful out of nothing, as opposed to useless societies that only bring death and insanity. You don’t have to be genius to see how Israel and Jews in general contribute much to the world while Arab Muslims (in the past 300-500 years) have contributed very little except some oil and gas some Arab nations were fortunate enough to be situated over.
Now to turn to your comment that Iran was not developing a dangerous nuclear weapons program. That’s your opinion but I trust the opinion of others who find otherwise. Israel and most Republicans and some Democrats are right about how dangerous Iran is. Do you want another North Korea?
As for your tired assertion that Israel pushed the US into launching wars in Iraq and Syria, that is copied off Storm Front, Mondoweiss or similar Jew-hating websites. No evidence. Did Israel make Iraq invade Kuwait triggering the first Iraq war? Wasn’t that to protect the gulf states? As for the second one, Saddam was bluffing he was developing nuclear weapons and he had and used chemical weapons, he threatened to kill the Bush family, and the US had the unfortunately delusional belief it would be possible to democratize the Muslim Arab states. Had that been possible, it would have been great for everyone in the Middle East and the World but it was not feasible.
As for Syria, the USA never launched any war there. We generally have permitted the factions to kill each other while declaiming human rights violations and while doing a little support for some rebel factions.
In neither case did we do anything for Israel. Iraq was no threat to Israel in 2003 and Israel has no favored outcome in Syria. Certainly Assad is bad but ISIS would be worse. I don’t think Israel even has a uniform policy with respect to the Syrian civil war. You seem to forget Israel has different left and right wing parties and has her share of leftist atheists like you. However, even the leftist atheists in Israel have more insight into what it is to live side by side large numbers of Muslim Arabs than you do.
You sit comfortably in your home in Oregon castigating Israel. It would be interesting to see what choice you would make if you were required to live in either Israel for the rest of your life OR any Muslim Arab state of your own choosing. Which would you choose and why?
JW: “Fortunately, the US government and increasingly European nations, and certainly Russia, seem to believe there is a real threat from global Islamism, so what we think matters little.”
Hmmm, you appear to be obsessed with the idea that “Islamism” is “global”.
I certainly agree that there is “militant Islamism”, and I applaud Trump’s oft-stated insistence that they represent the most pressing national security threat to the USA. Because that is surely true.
But it is a pressing national security threat to the USA because it is the *USA* that insists on meddling in the Middle East, not vice versa.
You overcook the issue when you insist on hanging the label “global Islamism” on this, Jeffrey. It inflates their importance way, way, way beyond what is warranted.
It’s more than enough to hang a banner labelled “militant Islamism” on these guys, because that and that alone is enough to also paint a big ol’ bullseye on their back.
YR, Okay fine, militant Islamism is the threat. But I wonder what you require to be considered “global” if Africa, Middle East and Asia do not count as sufficient. Probably Hitler would have been content for all that land and left North America alone (at least for a while) but I’m sure you probably would not have considered that a very sound idea.
And yes, I know all the Islamist groups together do not amount to the military strength of WW2 Germany and Japan, but the Axis nations did not have nuclear weapons or a fifth column in the United States. The Islamist groups could get their hands on nukes at some point and arguably have at least a nascent fifth column here (although not as robust as in Europe).
To the extent you suggest if we just stopped “meddling” in the Middle East the Islamic world would leave us alone, I don’t know what you base that on? That sounds similar to the “let Hitler have Europe, Africa and Asia” idea.