During his last administration, President Donald Trump defied criticism from diplomats and designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. He should shatter diplomatic china again and similarly designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood sought to overcome perceived weakness of Muslims on the world stage by excising Western influence from their domains.

In 1946, the U.S. intelligence community labeled the group a growing threat due to its assassination campaign against Egyptian leaders it deemed too corrupted by liberalism.

The Brotherhood’s motto—“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration”—underscores its ideological orientation.

Both directly and via offshoots like Hamas, the organization commits or contributes to terrorism. Many of its charities become feeders for terrorist groups. Ideology matters.

The teachings of Sayyid Qutb, a prominent Brotherhood ideologue, laid the groundwork for modern jihadist movements.

Muslim Brotherhood ideology also inspires extremist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The Brotherhood’s willingness to use violence to replace secular governments with Islamist ones aligns with designated terrorist groups.

The United States is not immune. Brotherhood-affiliated groups systematically seek to exploit and infiltrate democratic institutions to advance their agenda.

In the United States, organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) influence public opinion, policymaking, and law enforcement practices to align with goals espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S. exploit civil liberties to erode national security.

CAIR lobbies against counterterrorism measures, promotes often false narratives to delegitimize security enforcement, and seeks to silence legitimate criticism of Islamist extremism via lawfare and under the guise of combating Islamophobia.

In effect, its ideas of freedom of speech appear to conform with those practiced in Turkey or under Hamas’s rule in Gaza.

Too often, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates appear to act as public relations arms for terror. CAIR refuses to condemn Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians unequivocally.

Similarly, CAIR leaders defend individuals convicted of terrorism charges, claiming they are victims of discrimination or political schemes.

Disdain for American lives seems a common factor, even when addressing Iranian-backed terror.

Brotherhood-linked groups condemned the killing of Iran’s Qods Force Chief Qassem Soleimani while ignoring the threat he posed to both American soldiers and civilians and stability in the Middle East.

U.S. policy circles have debated Muslim Brotherhood terror designation for years.

Eric Trager, a congressional staffer who now heads the Middle East portfolio in the National Security Council, documented how Brotherhood ideology and activities threaten American interests.

Political considerations, backlash fears, and the Brotherhood’s efforts to project a moderate face stymie efforts to act. So, too, do worries about how U.S. allies like Turkey and Qatar might react.

Designating the Brotherhood would signal that the Trump administration refuses to tolerate groups that undermine U.S. security. Such action would dismantle the scheme where proponents of Hamas and other terror causes can cloak themselves in a mantle of legitimacy.

It would strip away the veneer of moderation that these groups use to infiltrate U.S. institutions and influence policymakers.

Critics warn that designating the Muslim Brotherhood will alienate U.S. allies, stifle political discourse, and unfairly target Muslims. These claims lack merit.

Many close allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. To follow suit will strengthen bilateral and multilateral cooperation and stymie those who use religion to promote violence.

Turkey and Qatar might complain, but rather than compromise diplomatically, the message should be to cease terror support. Every designated state sponsor of terror can make choices to win removal from the terror list.

The United States must distinguish between Islam as a faith and Islamist groups that exploit religion for nefarious political purposes.

The argument that terror designation undercuts free speech also lacks merit. The First Amendment protects lawful expression but does not shield organizations that provide material support for terrorism or promote subversion.

Designation does not infringe on individuals’ rights to practice religion or express opinions; instead, it targets those who manipulate democratic freedoms to spread extremism, recruit followers, and fund terror networks.

If there is ever to be peace in the Middle East, governments must tackle not only terrorist violence and the financial network upon which terror groups rely, but also the ideological networks that enable them.

Trump may be the right person at the right time to turn diplomatic practice on its head in a way that will save countless lives in the Middle East and in Europe and the United States.

Image - 

By Eric Navarro, Middle East Forum