In discussions of global power dynamics and geopolitical hegemony, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) is rarely critiqued explicitly through the lens of institutional Islamophobia. Yet a closer look reveals CENTCOM as not merely a regional military command, but as the very apparatus of Islamophobic policy implementation—reflecting and reinforcing America's persistent antagonism toward Muslim-majority nations and peoples in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

What is CENTCOM?

Established in 1983, CENTCOM covers the "central region" of the globe—from Egypt to Pakistan, including key Middle Eastern states and parts of Central Asia. Officially, CENTCOM's mission emphasizes security and stability, claiming a primary focus on counterterrorism and regional cooperation. However, a deeper examination reveals that CENTCOM’s operational posture routinely reduces complex socio-political conflicts to oversimplified binaries that equate Muslim-majority groups or movements with terrorism or extremism.

Islamophobic Foundations of CENTCOM

Islamophobia is frequently described as an irrational fear or prejudice against Islam and Muslims. Yet, CENTCOM operationalizes a systemic form of Islamophobia—characterized by institutionalized suspicion, militarized surveillance, and strategic demonization of Muslim-majority regions:

• Framing Muslim-majority regions as "inherently unstable":
  CENTCOM policies frequently rest upon assumptions that predominantly Muslim societies are inherently conflict-ridden, requiring perpetual surveillance, intervention, and military presence.

• Institutionalized distrust and suspicion:
  From Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria and Yemen, CENTCOM’s presence and interventionist policies have fostered a culture of suspicion that casts the local population as perpetual threats.

• Persistent militarization of diplomacy:
  CENTCOM has progressively replaced nuanced diplomacy with military operations, reinforcing stereotypes of Muslim-majority countries as inherently aggressive or terror-prone.

CENTCOM’s reliance on pre-emptive fighter jet bombing runs, drone strikes, and mass surveillance in countries like Yemen and Somalia has raised ethical concerns. Reports by organizations like Amnesty International document civilian casualties and human rights violations, which critics argue stem from institutionalized suspicion of Muslim communities.

israel’s CENTCOM Mimicry: The Regional Little Brother

In 2021, israel was moved officially into CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. This shift institutionalized a longstanding strategic alignment—both symbolic and practical—between U.S. and israeli military strategies and reinforced israel’s role as a regional partner within CENTCOM’s framework. Yet, the mimicry goes deeper:

• A Parallel Institutional Structure:
  israel has, over decades, constructed military and security apparatuses structurally similar to CENTCOM, effectively mirroring the operational approach of its powerful ally and patron.

• Anti-Arab, Anti-Muslim Framing:
  Like its American counterpart, israeli military strategy consistently depicts regional conflicts in starkly polarized religious and ethnic terms. Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, and other predominantly Muslim populations become perpetual "security threats."

• Operational Islamophobia:
  israeli security policy mirrors CENTCOM’s Islamophobic tendencies by systematically criminalizing Palestinian resistance, pathologizing Islamic religious practice, and leveraging anti-Muslim sentiment to justify oppressive security measures.

CENTCOM as a Hegemonic Mechanism

Hegemony, as theorized by Antonio Gramsci, refers to the dominance of one state or ideology over others not merely through force, but through consent and internalized norms. CENTCOM embodies a particularly aggressive form of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, institutionalizing Islamophobia as a legitimizing rationale for continued military dominance.

This ideological underpinning has lasting consequences:

• Cyclical conflict:
  Military interventions justified by Islamophobic frameworks create perpetual conflict conditions, thus further justifying a sustained American military presence.

• Regional militarization and authoritarianism:
  CENTCOM empowers autocratic regimes that exploit Islamophobic rhetoric to suppress legitimate internal dissent and justify repression under the guise of "counterterrorism."

Breaking the Cycle: A New Lens

Recognizing CENTCOM as an institution that perpetuates Islamophobic hegemony is a crucial first step toward recalibrating U.S. and global engagement with Muslim-majority regions. Meaningful reform would require dismantling the institutional logic that positions entire cultures and societies as inherent threats requiring military dominance.

Ultimately, addressing the core Islamophobic assumptions embedded within both CENTCOM and its israeli equivalent is necessary not only for regional stability but also for more ethical and effective U.S. foreign policy.

Conclusion

CENTCOM, far from being simply a geopolitical military command, represents a troubling institutionalization of Islamophobia within U.S. foreign policy and security strategies. israel’s similar security framework not only replicates this model but intensifies regional tensions and deepens anti-Muslim prejudice. Recognizing and challenging this structural Islamophobia is vital for dismantling oppressive power dynamics and achieving genuine global stability and peace.