Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan’s Governments: From Alliance to Rupture

One of the Islamic Action Front Party’s offices in Jordan (Party’s official website)
One of the Islamic Action Front Party’s offices in Jordan (Party’s official website)
TT

Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan’s Governments: From Alliance to Rupture

One of the Islamic Action Front Party’s offices in Jordan (Party’s official website)
One of the Islamic Action Front Party’s offices in Jordan (Party’s official website)

The arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, marked by periods of resolution and banning of activities, is not disconnected from the long history of the group’s journey in the kingdom, dating back to the mid-1940s when it was first established.

However, this journey—characterized by varying relations with successive governments—began with collaboration and ended in conflict. How did this unfold?

Leaders of Jordan’s Islamic movement, encompassing both the banned Muslim Brotherhood and its political wing, the Islamic Action Front, consistently supported Jordan’s stability during the last decades of the 20th century.

This support, however, shifted into decades of confrontation with the authorities after the divisions within the movement emerged.

A key moment in the movement's history came when Jordanian authorities accused the group of plotting to “stir chaos” and possessing “explosive materials,” marking a significant turning point for the Islamic movement in the kingdom.

This came especially after recordings revealed the arrested individuals’ ties to the unlicensed Brotherhood group in Jordan.

Founded in 1946, the Brotherhood initially operated as a charitable society, providing aid through fundraising efforts. It attracted young people who were influenced by its leaders’ calls for public activism.

Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood maintained an alliance with the government. Its leaders gradually moved into senior official positions, using their power to expand their grassroots support and promote their message within Jordanian society, which historically had a strong conservative religious base.

During this time, the Brotherhood’s influence on school students was significant. It encouraged protests and sit-ins against political forces opposed to them, particularly the Communist and Ba’ath parties before the latter's split. Clashes occurred between these groups in downtown Amman and in key cities across the kingdom.

In the 1970s, the relationship between the Brotherhood and the government evolved into one of partnership and alliance, particularly under the leadership of former Prime Minister Wasfi Tal. This period saw prominent Islamic leader Ishaq Farhan appointed as Minister of Education and later as Minister of Awqaf, overseeing important reforms in educational curricula.

Farhan’s task of reforming the education system included incorporating the Brotherhood’s religious teachings into school textbooks, reflecting the growing influence of the group in shaping Jordanian public life.

Meanwhile, members of the Brotherhood, funded by the government, pursued advanced studies in the United States, returning to hold key positions in the Ministry of Education, with Abdullatif Arabiyat, a senior member, serving as the ministry’s deputy for almost a decade.

Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Brotherhood sought to capitalize on regional developments, aiming to increase its political influence. Its leadership, particularly in key urban centers such as Amman, Zarqa, and Irbid, began to broaden its outreach.

The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Awqaf became critical battlegrounds for the Brotherhood, enabling it to infiltrate mosques through imams and transform them into organizational hubs.

This religious outreach laid the groundwork for political mobilization, with gatherings and lessons organized after evening prayers, further solidifying the Brotherhood’s presence in the public sphere.

The political journey of the Brotherhood in Jordan took a dramatic turn in 1989, when the country lifted martial law and resumed parliamentary life after decades of authoritarian rule.

The Brotherhood seized the opportunity, winning a powerful bloc in the 11th Parliament and securing popular support, positioning itself as a key political player.

That era also marked the Brotherhood’s first foray into governance, backing Prime Minister Mudar Badran’s cabinet as part of a national effort to support Iraq against a US-led coalition. It was a rare alignment with the state, underscored by the election of Arabiyat as parliamentary speaker for three consecutive terms — a move widely seen as part of a government-Brotherhood alliance.

In 1992, the group formalized its political arm with the creation of the Islamic Action Front, cementing the link between its religious mission and political ambitions. But the distinction between party and group remained blurred, with critics arguing that the party remained under Brotherhood control.

That same year, tensions flared when the Brotherhood opposed Jordan’s participation in the Madrid Peace Conference, prompting a no-confidence motion against the government of Prime Minister Taher Masri. Although Masri resigned voluntarily, the incident marked the start of growing rifts between the Brotherhood and the state.

The following parliamentary elections in 1993 deepened internal fractures, both within the movement and between the Brotherhood and its political allies. The rift widened further in 1994, when Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel. The Islamic Action Front boycotted the vote on the treaty, signaling a decisive shift from cooperation to confrontation.

In the aftermath of the peace treaty, the Brotherhood distanced itself from official alliances and became a staunch opponent of normalization with Israel. The group boycotted the 1997 parliamentary elections, a move that triggered an exodus of leaders who opposed the boycott. Some dissidents went on to form the moderate Islamist Wasat Party, led by Abdel Rahim Akkour.

Distrust between the Brotherhood and the government deepened under the shadow of King Hussein’s illness and the succession of King Abdullah II. The movement remained politically dormant until 2003, when the Islamic Action Front re-entered parliament following a two-year suspension of legislative life during the Second Intifada. The party secured 16 seats in the 14th Parliament.

However, the rocky relationship persisted. In 2007, the Brotherhood and its party participated in elections again after negotiations with then-Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit. But allegations of large-scale vote rigging saw the Islamic Action Front secure only six seats — a result it denounced as a betrayal of the agreement with the government.

The controversial election result sparked a leadership crisis within the Brotherhood. The group’s hardline faction, known as the Hawks, overpowered the traditional moderates (the Doves) in internal polls, leading to a purge of long-standing leaders.

Accusations emerged that the group had been hijacked by Hamas sympathizers, reshaping the Brotherhood’s identity and guiding principles.

In the years that followed, former leaders split from the movement, accusing its new leadership of dragging the Brotherhood and its political arm into a confrontational path aligned with regional Islamist movements.

From mainstream political player to marginalized actor, the Brotherhood’s trajectory in Jordan mirrors a broader regional trend — one where Islamist movements rise through democratic openings but often clash with the state over ideology, foreign policy, and the limits of political power.



Israel Faces New Era of Sinking US Support After Election

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

Israel Faces New Era of Sinking US Support After Election

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's brash campaign posters are still up on Israeli public buses -- images of him, US President Donald Trump and soaring warjets that laud the two leaders attacking Iran together.

Neither is now advertising the state of the two countries' alliance.

A week after an inconclusive election for Netanyahu, Americans overwhelmingly rejected Trump and chose a Congress led by Democrats who want a tougher approach to Israel, whether on Iran, Gaza or settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

The back-to-back elections look to many observers like a turning point, with Israel no longer able to take for granted the cover of the world's most powerful country.

"This is a new era. The confluence of the Gaza war and the war with Iran have really changed how mainstream Americans -- not people particularly concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- see Israel," said Yael Sternhell, an expert on the United States at Tel Aviv University.

Vice President JD Vance, assessing why his Republicans fared poorly, listed four ways to bring voters back, including ending the Iran war and changing "our relationship with Israel".

Trump did not disagree. Just as voting was underway Tuesday, Trump said he had agreed with Netanyahu to end the $3.8 billion in annual US military aid to Israel by the end of this year, explicitly tying the decision to the US political mood.

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister who has served on and off for nearly two decades, had eagerly sought Trump's endorsement but also acknowledged his country's growing isolation.

In the final days of the campaign, he suggested Israel turn to cryptocurrencies to circumvent international sanctions he expected would intensify.

Netanyahu has not commented on the US election or Trump's aid remarks.

Amit Segal, a journalist known for his proximity to Netanyahu, posted that the political situation in the United States marked a "catastrophe" for Israel.

- Can Eisenkot restore the alliance? -

Opposition contender Gadi Eisenkot, who is trying to cobble together a coalition to oust Netanyahu, has cast himself as capable of repairing relations.

In an English-language statement, the former military chief said he believed in "liberal values" and also wanted to work "closely and constructively" with Trump.

Yair Golan, the main left-wing leader inside Eisenkot's bloc, called for Israel to restore a bipartisan approach destroyed by Netanyahu who he said promoted a "destructive Israeli narrative of eternal war and authoritarian rule".

Netanyahu boasted in his campaign about standing up to Democratic presidents including Barack Obama, who remains a hero for many Democrats. Netanyahu openly aligned with Republicans a decade ago to attack Obama's diplomacy on Iran.

"Netanyahu certainly rubs Democrats the wrong way and has made every effort to alienate them," Sternhell said.

"But Eisenkot can't just be a nicer man to receive a softer approach from this new Congress," she added. "He's going to need new policies."

She said Eisenkot would likely enjoy Israeli public support for cracking down on extremist settlers, who have attacked Palestinians in the West Bank with virtual impunity.

But Israel has shifted to the right, with wide initial support for the Gaza war.

- Broadening criticism of Israel -

The new Congress will include progressive Democrats such as Abdul El-Sayed, the first Muslim elected to the Senate, who describe the devastation in Gaza as genocide, an assertion rejected by Israel.

Netanyahu "made a bet not only on the Republicans but almost personally on Trump", said Eli Kowaz, senior policy director of the Economic Cooperation Foundation, an Israeli think tank that backs a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

"These results show that bet had an expiry date," Kowaz said. "Also, for the first time, really, I think there's a realization that it isn't only about the Democrats. It's a problem with the relationship with America."

Without US assistance, Israel still has its own major arms industry and retains a clear edge fighting non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah, said Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for the Israeli defense ministry.

But he said Israel would need to rely more on cheaper artillery or non-sophisticated bombs, further increasing risks of civilian casualties that have enraged international opinion.

"Israel can adjust to a new strategic reality of losing much and even all US military aid, but it will be tough for Israel. It will require Israel to consider hard choices such as taking huge loans or raising taxes," Eilam said.

Kowaz said that Eisenkot, aware of politics in Washington, was trying to show he is interested in regional stability and strategic agreements and not just "an indefinite state of war".

"He is definitely laying out a different vision for Israel's relationship with the United States."


Trump Could Woo North Korea After Midterm Setback, but Kim May Not Respond

US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
TT

Trump Could Woo North Korea After Midterm Setback, but Kim May Not Respond

US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)

The rebuke President Donald Trump suffered in the US midterm elections could prompt him to step up efforts to re-engage North Korea, but any willingness to make major concessions risks creating friction with regional allies.

Analysts and officials in Asia expect Trump to focus on foreign policy as he seeks to build his legacy in the final two years of his term. With efforts to resolve the wars in Ukraine and Iran yet to produce breakthroughs, he is likely to turn to Asia, where he believes he has room to maneuver.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom Trump has been eager to restart talks, is likely to be a key part of that effort, they say.

"Trump is likely to devote significant effort to achieving foreign policy successes, especially if he faces greater constraints on the domestic front," said Ban Kil-joo, international relations professor at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy in Seoul.

"Given Trump would want a successor to win in 2028, there is a strong possibility that engagement with North Korea would be part of that agenda," he ‌said.

But there is ‌little incentive at the moment for Kim to respond, analysts say.

Asked about Trump's plans for diplomacy with North ‌Korea, the White ⁠House said Trump ⁠has restored American strength on the global stage and strengthened ties with world leaders.

"His foreign policy decisions have never been motivated by politics," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in emailed comments to Reuters.

"The Commander-in-Chief will always act in the best interest of the American people and our national security."

Trump met Kim three times during his first term after a war of words that raised fears of military conflict.

But their 2019 summit ended without agreement after they failed to reach a deal on North Korea's nuclear weapons program and sanctions relief.

Seven years later, the stakes are higher. North Korea has expanded its nuclear and missile arsenal, while Pyongyang's ties with Russia and China are the best in years, giving Kim less incentive to negotiate and potentially increasing pressure on Trump to offer concessions.

TRUMP CALLS KIM 'GREAT GUY'

Trump has touted his relationship with Kim, ⁠calling him a "great guy" and saying that they "get along very well."

Nonetheless, US and South Korean officials see ‌fading chances of a meeting this year, with Washington receiving no response from Pyongyang ahead of a regional ‌summit in China this month where they might have met.

Kim's influential sister, Kim Yo Jong, has said dialogue remains a path to peace, but Pyongyang sees no need ‌for talks now. She denounced what she called Washington's "hostile policy" while denying US accusations that North Korea stole more than $6 billion in virtual assets from Binance ‌last week.

Her brother has previously said he was open to talks if Washington stopped insisting his country give up nuclear weapons. Regional allies South Korea and Japan are opposed to any such concession.

"A summit that shelves denuclearization would undermine deterrence and create policy friction among Washington, Seoul and Tokyo," said Leif-Eric Easley, professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.

Officials in Japan and South Korea are concerned they could be "cut out of the loop" if Trump deals directly with Kim, with the quiet blessing of Beijing and Moscow, a ‌senior Japanese official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

"(Japanese officials) are concerned about the lengths he will go to get a summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, such as dropping the issue of denuclearization."

'BIGGEST CHANGE ⁠SINCE WORLD WAR TWO'

Trump has referred ⁠to North Korea as a nuclear power, a status that allies in the region and the West have refused to recognize despite the dozens of nuclear warheads Pyongyang is believed to have built and its stockpile of fissile material.

"If US-North Korea talks lead Washington to accept North Korea's nuclear status, the security environment in Asia would change dramatically," said Professor Kazuhiro Maeshima at Sophia University in Japan.

"The biggest change since World War Two could occur in the remaining two years of the Trump administration. It is a serious situation."

Kim now has a vastly more advanced arsenal than at the time of the 2018-2019 summits, including more weapons and missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, a growing fleet of modern warships and submarines, and improved drone capabilities.

If Trump were to bring Kim back to the table, he might need to offer more than partial sanctions relief.

Such concessions could face hurdles at home from a Democratic-controlled Congress and Trump's limited time in office, said Moon Chung-in, a Yonsei University Professor in Seoul who served as a presidential adviser on national security.

"And what is important is North Korea's perception and calculation; if North Korea thinks that Trump has entered a lame-duck period and he cannot get the support from Congress... there's no reason for Kim Jong Un to come to dialogue," he said.

Former US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, who led US negotiations with North Korea during Trump's first term, also said there were few incentives for Pyongyang currently.

"The North Koreans, I think, have very little upside to a meeting like this right now, and potentially some downside."


Is the MAGA Era Over?

President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
TT

Is the MAGA Era Over?

President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

Has MAGA fever finally begun to fade? Will the American right abandon the Make America Great Again slogan and Donald Trump's populist ideology in favor of a more traditional brand of conservatism?

Following a crushing defeat in midterm elections that revolved almost entirely around one man, many Republicans have begun questioning the party's future and what role, if any, Trump should play in shaping it.

The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages have long represented the establishment right, called for "soul-searching" and urged Republicans to move away from the ultranationalist, identity-driven rhetoric that helped return the 80-year-old Trump to power.

In an editorial titled "The Trump Reckoning Arrives," the newspaper argued that tariffs and mass deportations were no substitute for higher real incomes.

It added: "Playing to the bro MAGA base is no substitute for persuading Hispanics, independents and suburban swing voters who abandoned the party on Tuesday."

"Still Your President"

The White House, however, appeared far less inclined toward introspection.

Its first post on X on Wednesday featured a stern-looking Trump accompanied by the words "Trump is still your president," a reminder that he will remain in office until January 2029.

But the American political calendar never stands still. Wednesday also effectively marked the beginning of the 2028 presidential campaign, which will culminate in the election of Trump's successor.

The US Constitution bars Trump from seeking a third term.

There was no realistic scenario in which Trump could have emerged from the midterm elections in a stronger political position.

The scale of the Republican defeat on Tuesday night, which exceeded even some of the Democrats' most optimistic expectations, has accelerated the erosion of his political influence.

Eyes on 2028

Vice President JD Vance, widely regarded as a potential contender for the White House in 2028, was careful not to confront his boss directly.

In a lengthy, essay-like post on X on Wednesday, Vance wrote: "The reason we lost is the war."

He immediately added: "The president himself said so last night."

That was not entirely accurate. Trump had attributed the defeat partly to the war in the Middle East, while also arguing that Republicans had fielded weak candidates.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis described the outcome as an "extinction-level event" for the Republican Party, suggesting Republicans might have to wait until 2032 to regain control of Congress.

Republican lawmaker Don Bacon wrote on X that the party "needs to reclaim our Reagan principles."

He added: "Voters rejected populism, chaos, Putin and tariffs."

Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right figure who has turned against Trump, went further.

"If the GOP wants any chance in the future, it will have to kick Donald Trump out of the party," she said.

Matthew Boyle, a prominent figure at the far-right news outlet Breitbart, wrote on X that "Republicans need to get back to basics."

"No more endless wars," he said.

On the economy, which he identified as the top issue, Boyle called for policies that benefit ordinary Americans rather than special interests.

He also urged Republicans to "be sane with immigration enforcement."

Criticism Without Naming Trump

For now, however, criticism remains relatively muted. Only a handful of conservative figures, whether moderates or hardliners, have been willing to attack Trump by name.

After all, the Republican Party has tied its political fortunes almost entirely to Trump since 2016.

"The big question is, are some of these Republican leaders in the House and Senate going to distance themselves from Trump?" Amy Dacey, a former Democratic official who is now an expert at American University, told AFP.

The same question applies to far-right influencers whose prominence and financial success have been closely linked to Trump's popularity.

Dacey said a devastating electoral defeat could diminish their influence, but it would by no means eliminate those associated with the MAGA movement.

Some of MAGA's online supporters have already attempted to shift the blame elsewhere.

"Great work, neocons," Jack Posobiec wrote sarcastically on X, referring to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, known for its interventionist foreign policy and hawkish stance toward Iran.

Nevertheless, it may only be a matter of time before the divisions become more pronounced.

Former congressman Bob Good wrote on the same platform: "Gotta start by acknowledging that Trump was and is the problem. Quietly whispering it won't do it."