Follow us on social

King Abdullah Jordan

Was Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood ban a bid to please Israel, Saudi?

King Abdullah wielded the nuclear option this week after 16 members were arrested in an alleged terror plot

Middle East

On Wednesday, the Jordanian government declared that it had banned the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement that has long been active in the kingdom.

The announcement followed arrests last week of 16 members of the group for allegedly plotting an attack inside Jordan. The interior minister stated that the group and all its affiliated activities were illegal.

It was not immediately clear what impact the ban would have on the Islamic Action Front, the political party affiliated with the Brotherhood, which won a plurality of votes in last fall’s parliamentary election. The party tried to distance itself from the Brotherhood during a press conference on Wednesday, saying it would continue to operate as an independent political party with no affiliation and “within the limits of the law.”

Following the Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent campaign to bomb and blockade Gaza, the Islamic Action Front became significantly more vocal in its longstanding criticism of Israel, as well as of the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty. The party’s critique reflected widespread rage among Jordanians, approximately half of whom are originally from historic Palestine, provoked by Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 50,000 people, mostly women and children.

That anger has been expressed in frequent public demonstrations as well as a widespread boycott of American and European products, due to these countries’ support for Israel’s actions.

The IAF translated public dissatisfaction with the Jordanian government’s perceived complicity in Israel’s war into electoral success in last September’s parliamentary elections. In a statement to the Jordan News in response to the banning of the Brotherhood, Zaki Bani Irshaid, the former secretary general of the Islamic Action Front, criticized the government’s decision for stoking internal division at a time when Jordan faced an existential threat from Israel’s creeping annexation of the West Bank. If Israel tried to force the three million Palestinians who live in the West Bank across the border into Jordan, the continued rule of King Abdullah and the Hashemite monarchy would likely be seriously threatened.

Anger at the king’s perceived willingness to effectively acquiesce to Israel’s destruction of Gaza raises questions as to why he outlawed the Brotherhood now, which risks provoking greater unrest. The announcement was made while a Saudi delegation, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was visiting Amman, prompting speculation that Abdullah may have wished to demonstrate his anti-Islamist bona fides.

The Saudi government has waged a years-long campaign against the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood as it attempts to transform its approach to Islam under the auspices of MbS’s Vision 2030. Jordan has long relied on Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States, for financial support. Last year, Riyadh completed a $250 million aid package for Jordan. With U.S. President Donald Trump having suspended the $1.45 billion the U.S. annually sends to Jordan, Abdullah is likely eager to secure other sources of funding.

Yet this is not the first time that Abdullah has targeted the group. In a 2013 interview, he described the Brotherhood as “run by wolves in sheep’s clothing.” In 2015, the government helped to orchestrate a split between the group’s so-called “hawks” and “doves,” allowing the latter to retain control of all of the Brotherhood’s assets. In 2016, the government closed the offices of the so-called “hawks,” after preventing them from holding elections for the group’s internal leadership. All of these reflect Abdullah’s general suspicion of the Brotherhood and its popularity.

Yet historically, the Jordanian branch of Brotherhood was known as the “loyal opposition.” In contrast to the repression suffered by the original Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and some of its branches elsewhere around the region, the Jordanian monarchy has tolerated the group, which in turn avoided openly challenging the king’s rule. The group itself is as old as Jordan itself — both of them were established in 1946.

During the reign of King Hussein (1952-1999), the group was permitted to operate, including by running schools and charities and other social services. His son Abdullah took the throne not long before the 9/11 attacks transformed the U.S. approach to the Middle East. Abdullah was eager to partner with Washington, including by hosting CIA “black sites” for the detention, interrogation, and torture of suspected Al Qaeda militants and assisting in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As counter-terrorism dominated the U.S. security agenda, Abdullah sought to portray himself as a “moderate Muslim partner” against violent extremism. Under the rubric of “moderate Islam” versus “extremist Islam,” Abdullah, like many regional leaders, falsely portrayed Islamist movements, despite their explicit rejection of violence, as supportive of terrorism, if not the actual perpetrators, and thus essentially equivalent. Under this framework, Abdullah could more easily depict the Brotherhood as suspect.

His latest move to repress the group likely reflects his concern that opposition to his ongoing partnership with Israel is growing. Across much of the Middle East, Arab publics continue to watch in horror as Israel violated its ceasefire with Hamas and then returned to pounding Gaza with renewed ferocity while simultaneously preventing all aid, food, or medicine from entering the territory since March 2. In the intervening 53 days, the risk of acute malnutrition has grown, with the UN World Food Program warning that hundreds of thousands of people are at risk.

Abdullah’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood will likely do little to quell his population’s growing frustration as more children succumb to starvation in Gaza.


Top photo credit: King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman. (Ahmad A Atwah/Shutterstock)
Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.