Not that I agree with the EO, but the logic behind it was that 6 of those 7 countries have ongoing insurgencies involving the IS, and Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq.
If this was entirely driven by religion they'd better put Bosnia and Albania on the list too.
Albania is actually mostly atheist/agnostic country. It has three religions on paper but most people are not religious at all.
It is a staunch US ally and part of NATO as well.
That logic doesn't hold water. If the rule was banning any country that has any muslims then it would ban 98% of European countries, as all have a %percentage of practicing muslims.
This rule seems more like a childish fit, to appease to the base voter that voted out of fear of muslims in general.
Yeah, there was an article on HN today from a Venezuelan writer (which HN flagged away ...) describing Chavez's and Trump's tactic, which is to paint a group with the bad guy label, and whip people up to hate that group, and in turn love the guy who says only he can save them.
> Iran was dragged in there due to either existing prejudice or more likely their involvement in Syria and Iraq.
Definitely the latter. They are directly opposed to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. [1] Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States. It is a kind of Middle Eastern Cold War (war by proxy).
Of course, if they're battling extremists insurgencies, then likely they aren't going to give as much push back diplomatically, and very little that matters. IMO, the administration would have banned more if they weren't worried about a backlash from key military allies in the region.
If this was entirely driven by religion they'd better put Bosnia and Albania on the list too.