Iranian threat construction is based in Orientalism, Islamophobia, and racist double standards

The focus of all the editorials revolved around the United States’s responsibility to fight the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran. The editorials attempted to show that Iran had violated its international obligations under the NPT. The two themes of Oriental untrustworthiness and Islam as threat appear to function as the ideological underpinning of this construction of us versus them. Whereas it downplays or denies Iran’s right to all nuclear technology applicable to peaceful purposes, a most central tenet of the NPT was left outside the editorials’discourse:nuclear disarmament. Under the terms of the NPT, the five original nuclear powers, who are parties to the NPT, were permitted to keep their nuclear arsenal but pledged to negotiate “in good faith”the end of the nuclear arms race and the elimination of their nuclear arsenals in return for other nations not seeking nuclear weapons (IAEA, n.d., pp. 1, 4). As stated by the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy (2005b), 35 years after the adoption of the NPT, the nuclear weapon states have failed to live up to their part of the treaty: [They] cynically [interpret] the NPT as a mechanism for the permanent maintenance of an international system of nuclear apartheid in which only they can possess nuclear weapons....Now the Bush administration wants to add a second tier to its nuclear double standard by denying uranium enrichment—needed for both nuclear power and weapons—to countries which don’t already have it. Today, the United States is spending about $40 billion annually on nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons spending has grown by 84% since 1995. The United States was to spend about $7 billion in 2005 to maintain and modernize nuclear war- heads, excluding the billions of dollars it will spend to operate and modernize its delivery and command and control systems. The U.S. arsenal has 10,000 nuclear warheads, and some 2,000 on “hair-trigger alert,”each one many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Institute for Public Accuracy, 2005a) The New York Times reported on February 7,2005,that the Bush administration has “begun designing a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be sturdier and more reliable and to have longer lives”(Broad, 2005, p. A1). Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn criticized the administration’s decision,saying that the United States has not set a good example for nuclear nonproliferation (Agence France-Presse, 2005). El Baradei has also criticized the U.S. nuclear policy (Giacomo, 2003). “The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons; meanwhile, it is arming itself....In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards, we will end up with more nuclear weapons,”El Baradei said. Writing in the editorial section of The Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter (2005) criticized the nuclear powers for refusing to meet their NPT nuclear disarmament commitments. He argues, The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating “bunker buster”and perhaps some new “small”bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. (p. A17) Whereas Iran’s alleged violation of its commitments under the NPT is important, the failure of the United States and the other nuclear weapon states to follow through on their promise to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons is not deemed worthy of discussion. Conclusion This study supports Karim (2000) and McAlister’s (2001) findings that, today, Orientalist depictions of Muslim countries and their political issues concentrate around the idea that Islam is a source of threat. This study also finds that in the case of Iran’s nuclear program, the issue of trust plays a more central role than the actual existence of evidence for Iran’s possession of a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The present critical discourse analysis also reveals how the three elite newspapers ’editorials selectively framed the issues surrounding the Iranian nuclear dispute by employing linguistic, stylistic, and argumentative maneuvers. Despite their differences in their policy recommendations, none challenged the underlying assumptions that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program,that the Islamic nature of its government is a threat, and that it should not be trusted with sensitive nuclear technology. Their inattention to the inconsistent nonproliferation policies of the United States and other European nuclear powers shows the limits of media criticism of official policies