" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Fearmongering the Muslim Brotherhood

Print Friendly

It has been nearly five months since an unprecedented civil uprising in Egypt toppled the three-decade rule of dictator Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak long enjoyed U.S. backing and military assistance for continuing his predecessor’s policies of maintaining a peace treaty with Israel and suppressing the country’s indigenous Muslim Brotherhood.

 

The Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, remains the world’s oldest and most influential Islamist organization, forming today a key component of the political opposition in Egypt, with offshoots in numerous Muslim countries. Following assassination attempts on members of Egypt’s leadership, the group was banned in the country for decades, during which time it subsequently renounced violence and committed itself to pursuing a Sharia-inspired political order through democratic means. The Brotherhood’s transformation into a religious, charitable, and democratic movement led to its rupture with more extreme Islamist groups like al-Qaeda, who deplored the group’s democratic participation, scorned its renunciation of violence, and resented its local, rather than global, commitment to “jihad.”

 

Despite the Brotherhood’s evolution, no sooner had the foundations of Mubarak’s autocratic rule begun to shake than conservative foreign policy voices in the United States began to raise alarm about the prospect of the Brotherhood coming to power in a post-Mubarak Egypt.

 

Andrew McCarthy, who has described the “Islamic” concept of freedom as “the opposite” of “reasoned self-determination,” noted that Mubarak “had his reasons” for being a tyrant, namely the threat of “jihadist terror.” In another deeply Islamophobic duo of articles, McCarthy portrayed the Obama administration’s very tentative engagements with the Brotherhood, coupled with its domestic security policies and acquiescence to Mubarak’s ouster, as indicative of Obama’s “infatuation” with the organization.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the well known Somali refugee who has served in the Dutch Parliament and is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted that the Brotherhood would easily outmaneuver its lesser-organized political rivals and take power in Egypt. Like Michael Rubin, who claimed to see “the shadow of Iran's Islamic revolution in the Egyptian chaos,” Hirsi Ali compared Egypt of 2011 to Iran of 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini, she noted, “did not engage in terrorism,” but later took control of the country—implying that the Muslim Brotherhood harbors Iran-like designs for Egypt. More than fighting wars, she continues, “the bigger challenge may be to deal with those Islamists who are willing to play a longer game.” Achieving the rather improbable, Hirsi Ali likens the goals of the Brotherhood to both Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden in the same article.

 

These writers and others draw on often decades-old Brotherhood proclamations, ignoring more recent developments and glossing over important generational and ideological cleavages within the organization, divisions that are likely to be amplified as Egypt attempts its democratic transition.

 

By advocating active U.S. support for factions opposed to the Brotherhood—a call echoed by House Foreign Affairs Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who claimed that the group was “radical and violent” and said she was “deeply disturbed” by the Egyptian government’s recent legalization of the Brotherhood’s new political party—these commentators seek to place a U.S. finger on the scales of a nascent Egyptian democracy.

 

This tactic, however, could well backfire by pushing divisions within the Brotherhood to the background and increasing sympathy for the group among average Egyptians, who remember the all too recent U.S. support for the Mubarak autocracy. Further, by refusing to acknowledge any sincere commitment to democracy on the part of the Brotherhood, they imply that the group’s Islamism precludes its ability to function responsibly. In the minds of many Muslims, as noted by Brookings scholar Steven Kull, such talk amounts to an American contempt for Islam itself, as well as a distrust of Muslim voting publics—a distrust that they see manifested in multiple U.S. invasions of Islamic countries, among more mundane interferences.

 

So far the Brotherhood has failed to gather the overwhelming support of Egyptians; a recent poll noted that, while it gathered the largest single share of any party, its support topped out at a relatively meager 15 percent. In the same poll, less than 1 percent of Egyptians expressed support for an Iran-style political system.

 

To be a serious player in Egyptian politics, the Brotherhood will likely be forced to further moderate its message and to form political alliances, as evidenced by its somewhat surprising recent alliance with the liberal Wafd party, a secular and democratic organization whose roots go back to the years after World War I. The move may be purely tactical, but it’s emblematic of parties who acknowledge the realities of democratic politics. If Egyptian democracy is to succeed, its parameters must be set by Egyptians and their political representatives—not by rightwing American commentators.

 

Who are some of these folk hyping the Brotherhood “threat”? And what have others said about these concerns?

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Ideas in Action was a rightist TV program co-produced by the George W. Bush Institute and Grace Creek Media that often featured prominent neoconservatives opining on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.


The now-defunct internet magazine Tech Central Station served as a platform for advocates of militarist U.S. foreign policies.


Once described as the “heart and soul of the military-industrial complex,” the American Security Council was an influential old-guard conservative group during the early Cold War that continues to press a conservative U.S. foreign policy vision.


An academic center of the American conservative movement, the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs has been a vigorous defender of the war on terrorism and an unequivocal supporter for Israel.


Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, has been a vocal advocate for staunchly militaristic foreign policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Two eminent foreign policy analysts, historian Andrew Bacevich of Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies and political scientist John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, discuss fundamental problems with American foreign policy and the Obama legacy, particularly with respect to Israel-Palestine.


Print Friendly

Not only is Monica Crowley, Donald Trump’s pick to head communications for the National Security Council, the subject of a wide-ranging plagiarism scandal, she pushed fringe conspiracy theories about “Islamist infiltration in the U.S.”


Print Friendly

From a territorial perspective the Security Council resolution 2334, stating that Israel′s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law, represents an escalation in the way the international community relates to Israel’s borders and its settlements in the West Bank.


Print Friendly

On Oct. 27, 2016, the UN adopted a resolution to launch negotiations in 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapon. Two weeks later the US elected Donald Trump, who subsequently argued that the US must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”


Print Friendly

As Trump supporters gear up for a fight to weaken or destroy the Iran nuclear deal, a new poll has found that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. public opposes withdrawing from the agreement.


Print Friendly

For all of its faults, the Obama administration was acutely aware of the limits to the use of American military force, whether it was struggling with terrorist organizations or contemplating the impact the use of force would have on achieving U.S. national security objectives.


Print Friendly

A senior Israeli government minister has announced that he will introduce legislation to effectively annex Israel’s third-largest settlement, part of a plan to incrementally annex parts of the West Bank .


RightWeb
share