For more than two decades, Islamophobia has been weaponised as a cornerstone of Western politics, a convenient tool to rally votes, justify wars, and redefine national identity through exclusion. In the post-9/11 world, the Muslim figure has been recast not merely as an outsider, but as the symbolic threat against which the “West” defines itself.

Peter Oborne, a British journalist and author of several books, wrote The Fate of Abraham, Why the West is Wrong About Islam? In it, he argues that Islamophobia is no longer a byproduct of fear but a calculated political device. “It’s not simply ignorance”, he notes, “it’s a deliberate system of narratives built to justify power, foreign and domestic alike”. For Oborne, the hostility toward Islam functions as a unifying myth for leaders struggling to hold together fractured electorates.

From Bush and Blair to Sunak and Trump

The roots of this phenomenon stretch back to the early 2000s, when George W. Bush and Tony Blair launched the “War on Terror”, a campaign sold as moral warfare between civilization and barbarism. The language of “freedom versus fanaticism” was less about terrorism and more about moral hierarchy, painting Western interventionism as righteous while Muslims were cast as perpetual suspects.

Oborne recalls how this rhetoric seeped deep into British politics: “After 9/11, mainstream parties competed to appear toughest on Muslims, not extremists, Muslims.” Blair’s government expanded surveillance, detention powers, and a “Prevent” program that still disproportionately targets Muslim communities. The UK, Oborne argues, turned Islamophobia into policy long before far-right populism made it fashionable.

Across the Atlantic, similar narratives shaped US politics. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the “Muslim threat” was instrumental in maintaining vast security budgets and endless wars. Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, complete with promises of a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” merely stripped the veneer off a system that had been in place for years. Islamophobia had become bipartisan.

John L. Esposito, a Distinguished University Professor, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, says this political manipulation is deliberate. “Islamophobia became institutionalized in the political mainstream,” he explains, “used to mobilize voters through fear and cultural resentment, especially in times of economic or political instability.”

In both countries, Muslims became a canvas onto which the public’s insecurities could be projected, a pattern as old as politics itself.

Media complicity and the manufacture of consent

The media’s role in amplifying this fear cannot be overstated. From tabloid headlines in Britain warning of “no-go zones” to US cable networks painting Muslim communities as potential extremists, the press has long provided the soundtrack to Islamophobic politics.

Oborne, himself a veteran journalist, has been sharply critical of the British press. “The mainstream media helped create the Islamophobia industry,” he told Al Mayadeen English. “Publications like the Daily Mail, The Sun, and even the Times have repeatedly printed stories that portray Muslims as a threat to the nation’s moral and cultural fabric — often based on distortion or fabrication.”

Academic studies back this up. Research by the University of Cambridge found that over 60% of British media coverage of Muslims between 2000 and 2019 was negative, frequently linking Islam to violence or extremism. The press did not simply reflect public anxiety, it manufactured it.

In the United States, right-wing think tanks and media ecosystems, often funded by wealthy donors, have turned Islamophobia into an industry. Esposito notes that a “small network of foundations, politicians, and commentators” has spent millions to normalize anti-Muslim sentiment. “They provide the talking points, fund the research, and feed the narrative, turning prejudice into policy,” he told Al Mayadeen English. 

Europe’s moral double standard

Related News

Manufacturing civil war: The Zionist doctrine to destroy resistance

The origins of the crisis: An analysis of recent economic and political dynamics in Japan

While the UK and US remain the primary architects of Islamophobia as policy, continental Europe has followed suit. France, Austria, and Denmark have increasingly fused Islamophobia with secularism and national identity.

France, for instance, has redefined laïcité, secularism, as a weaponized ideology. The French state’s obsession with Muslim women’s clothing, from hijabs to abayas, is justified in the name of “republican values,” even as it violates individual freedoms. Austrian and Danish leaders, meanwhile, have linked Muslim immigration to cultural decay, framing Muslims as incompatible with “Western civilization.”

Oborne argues that this European Islamophobia mirrors the same colonial arrogance once used to justify empire. “It’s a civilizing mission in new clothes,” he says. “Instead of saving souls, they claim to be saving democracy, but the structure is identical: the West defines itself as morally superior by defining Muslims as inferior.”

The political utility of prejudice

Why does Islamophobia endure even when its claims collapse under scrutiny? Because, as both Oborne and Esposito suggest, it works. It delivers votes, distracts from domestic crises, and justifies repressive policies.

Esposito, also the author of several books including Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21^st Century, points out that “when economies falter or trust in institutions erodes, politicians turn to identity politics.” Blaming Muslims becomes a way to channel frustration away from structural failures, whether inequality, foreign policy disasters, or declining public trust. “It’s scapegoating on a national scale,” he says.

In Britain, successive governments have used Islamophobia to mask deeper fractures in the post-imperial psyche. “The idea that Muslims are an alien presence allows Britain to tell itself it’s still defending civilization, just as it did during empire,” Oborne notes. “It’s nostalgia disguised as nationalism.”

The US equivalent is the myth of American exceptionalism, that the West is perpetually under siege by external “barbarism.” Together, these myths sustain a cycle of fear that no election seems to break.

Islamophobia and the collapse of moral credibility

The consequences of this political strategy reach far beyond domestic politics. Western governments that justify discrimination at home lose moral legitimacy abroad. How can nations that police Muslim women’s clothing or bomb Muslim-majority countries lecture others about democracy and human rights?

Oborne warns that Islamophobia is “a moral wound that undermines the very values the West claims to defend.” By embracing prejudice as politics, he argues, Western democracies have eroded their credibility in the eyes of the world.

Esposito agrees, calling this “the hypocrisy at the heart of liberal democracy.” He notes that Western leaders “invoke freedom and pluralism” while systematically excluding Muslims from their benefits. The result, he says, is “a democracy defined by double standards, one for ‘us,’ another for ‘them.’”

A profitable fear

Perhaps most insidious is how Islamophobia has become profitable. From counterterrorism budgets to border surveillance contracts and private security firms, fear of Muslims underwrites a multibillion-dollar industry.

Esposito has described this as “the Islamophobia enterprise,” a network of politicians, think tanks, media figures, and corporations who benefit from perpetual fear. “It’s not just prejudice,” he says. “It’s profit.”

In Britain, the Prevent program and the wider counter-extremism apparatus have created entire bureaucracies devoted to monitoring Muslims, often with little evidence of actual threat. In the US, the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence agencies have expanded powers in the name of combating extremism, despite studies showing right-wing violence poses a greater danger.

As Oborne puts it, “Islamophobia isn’t an accident. It’s an economy, and once an economy exists, it resists reform.”

Breaking the cycle

Ending Islamophobia as a political weapon requires more than moral appeals. It demands structural change, from media accountability and educational reform to political courage. Yet both Oborne and Esposito remain cautiously hopeful.

“The antidote,” says Esposito, “is pluralism, genuine pluralism that doesn’t just tolerate diversity but sees it as strength.” He points to emerging grassroots movements, interfaith coalitions, and young journalists challenging mainstream narratives as signs of resistance.

Oborne agrees that hope lies with citizens, not elites. “The establishment will not give up this tool easily,” he warns. “But truth still matters, and telling the truth about Islamophobia is the first act of defiance.”

The final reckoning

Two decades after the “War on Terror” began, its ideological fallout continues to shape Western societies. Islamophobia, once a fringe fear, now sits at the center of political discourse. But as both Oborne and Esposito make clear, it is also a mirror, reflecting the insecurities, hypocrisies, and moral decline of the very nations that claim to lead the free world.

If the West is to reclaim its moral compass, it must first confront the fear it created, and the lies it told to sustain it.