SAEDNEWS: The recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites have reignited longstanding Orientalist and Islamophobic narratives that frame Iran as an irrational and dangerous “Other,” undermining its sovereignty and complex political reality.
According to Saed News, the coordinated attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities—carried out under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—have brought renewed attention to a deeply entrenched colonial discourse. This framework depicts Iran as an unpredictable and irrational actor, thus legitimizing aggressive measures against it.
This narrative is hardly new. Since the 19th century, Orientalism has constructed West Asia and Islam as the irrational “Other,” unfit for self-rule and in need of Western oversight. Iran’s case is emblematic: despite its nuclear program remaining under international supervision with no indication of militarization, Western rhetoric insists on the need to “contain” Tehran, branding it as inherently untrustworthy due to its alleged theocratic nature. This rhetoric not only preempts justification for hostility but also strips Iran of sovereignty and reduces its rich political fabric to a simplistic caricature.
A more nuanced perspective reveals a different reality. Islam is not a static, dogmatic system but a plural and critical tradition, engaging in continuous self-examination and reformulation. This intellectual dynamism permeates everyday life across Muslim societies, including Iran, challenging the orientalist myth that Muslims are ruled by irrational passions incapable of strategic reasoning.
By portraying Iran as the embodiment of “radical otherness,” Western discourse recasts its international actions as irrational fanaticism, thereby legitimizing foreign intervention. This essentialist view reinforces a colonial matrix that denies alternative rationalities rooted in distinct historical, cultural, and geopolitical contexts.
Islamophobia, therefore, should be understood not simply as prejudice but as a form of structural racism—an epistemic violence that delegitimizes Muslim identities and justifies their exclusion from global power structures. The hostility toward Iran exemplifies this, reflecting more the anxieties of the West than Iran’s actual behavior.
The recent strikes also expose the hypocrisy of the global non-proliferation regime, which enforces disarmament selectively. While Western states maintain vast nuclear arsenals, countries in the Global South face sanctions and military threats, even when adhering to international agreements. The justification for such measures often invokes the outdated binary of civilization versus barbarism, echoing colonial-era justifications for domination.
Iran thus stands as a stark reminder of the failures of the current international order—a victim of Islamophobia and a symbol of the West’s inability to uphold its professed universal values. Achieving a more just and plural global system requires dismantling not only the military violence but also the symbolic and discursive frameworks that perpetuate exclusion and hierarchy. Only then can difference be recognized as a source of strength rather than threat.
