The Washington Connection Behind Jordan’s Recent Ban
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has made a calculated move in banning the Muslim Brotherhood, a decision shaped by political motivations aimed at Washington. King Abdullah’s action aligns with the foreign policy preferences of Donald Trump, whose previous administration expressed strong opposition to political Islam. In his first term, Trump threatened to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and appointed Eric Trager, a known hardliner on Egypt and the Brotherhood, as an adviser. In anticipation of Trump’s possible second term, Jordan has moved early to signal its loyalty.
Financial Repercussions and Strategic Gains
Jordan remains one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid, a fact that influences many of its geopolitical decisions. Trump once suspended aid to Jordan, including funds for its most ambitious desalination project, leaving the government scrambling for alternatives. With the Brotherhood’s ban, that funding has returned, reflecting the transactional nature of modern alliances. Jordanian officials appear to believe that the cost of internal unrest may be justified if external support remains intact. Still, the move carries long-term risks that resemble a short-term political trade.
King Hussein’s Political Balancing Act
King Hussein, Abdullah’s father, never banned the Muslim Brotherhood despite pressure from fellow Arab leaders and the West. His strategy revolved around maintaining domestic stability and international partnerships without creating internal enemies. He allowed the Brotherhood to function as a political pressure release, especially during moments of national crisis. During the Gulf War, for instance, he incorporated five Brotherhood members into his cabinet to unify the country under external pressure. His approach reflected a pragmatic understanding that the Brotherhood could be used to navigate social and geopolitical challenges.
Historic Loyalty of the Brotherhood to the Monarchy
The Brotherhood in Jordan had at times supported the monarchy during periods of instability and civil strife. In 1957, when pro-Nasser factions attempted a coup, the Brotherhood distanced itself from the insurgents. During the 1970 conflict between Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization, Brotherhood members refrained from taking up arms, maintaining neutrality. The organization also refrained from undermining Jordan’s position during Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. These decisions demonstrated a long-standing pattern of political restraint in times of national crisis.
Early Steps Taken by Abdullah Against the Brotherhood
Unlike his father, King Abdullah began taking aggressive actions against the Brotherhood shortly after assuming power in 1999. Within months, he expelled Hamas and later coordinated with Qatari officials to relocate its leadership to Doha. The government then moved to restrict the Brotherhood’s charitable and political activities under legal pretenses. In 2015, authorities licensed a breakaway faction, sidelining the original group by stripping its legal recognition. These steps reflected a strategy not of negotiation, but one of forced marginalization and quiet elimination.
Persistent Popular Support Despite Repression
Despite years of suppression, political Islam continues to hold a significant presence within Jordanian society. The Islamic Action Front, widely recognized as the political wing of the Brotherhood, won 31 of 138 parliamentary seats in recent elections. Support for Hamas surged after its October 7 attack on Israel, particularly in conservative strongholds such as tribal East Bank communities. Each attempt to weaken the Brotherhood has instead highlighted its enduring relevance. State suppression has not erased public sympathy, especially as Israeli policy toward Palestinians becomes increasingly aggressive and bloodier.
Fabricated Campaigns Disguised as Popular Demand
Recent calls to ban the Brotherhood appear to stem not from grassroots sentiment, but from orchestrated campaigns pushed through state-aligned media. Journalists and commentators do not operate in an environment of true editorial freedom within Jordan. Articles and segments calling for action against the Brotherhood are shaped to fit an official narrative rather than reflect widespread public concern. The structure of these campaigns mirrors similar efforts in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Each of these governments restricts discourse on political Islam under the guise of national interest.
Internal Power Struggles Behind the Scenes
Two dominant ideologies compete within Jordan’s power structure, each with its own view of existential threat. Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi and others view Israel’s expansionism as the most dangerous regional challenge facing Jordan. This perspective intensified after an ex-Jordanian soldier killed three Israelis in 2024, prompting uniformed soldiers to attend the mourning ceremony. Another faction, led quietly by the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), views Iran and political Islam as the main threats. The GID maintains a strong partnership with the CIA, often receiving additional funds and guidance outside of official U.S. aid channels.
The CIA’s Invisible Hand in Jordanian Politics
The GID, also known as the Muhabarat, operates as a parallel state apparatus and is closely tied to U.S. intelligence services. Former CIA officer Michael Scheuer once stated that Jordan ranks alongside Mossad as one of America’s most helpful intelligence partners. The CIA keeps permanent personnel stationed at GID headquarters and relies on Jordan for high-value interrogations and intelligence work. This alliance gives the intelligence agency enormous influence over Jordan’s internal security strategies. As a result, the Brotherhood ban can be interpreted as serving American priorities more than Jordanian stability.
Religious Stakes and Custodianship Failures in Jerusalem
As custodian of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, Jordan has obligations that transcend political calculation. During the 2024 Passover season, over 6,700 Jewish worshippers entered the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, surpassing all previous records. Reverend Munther Isaac, a Christian pastor and scholar, described the concurrent Easter season as the most difficult ever for Palestinian Christians. King Abdullah has remained largely silent, allowing Zionists to exploit the moment without resistance. In the eyes of many, banning the Brotherhood while Jerusalem faces pressure suggests misplaced priorities.
A Signal to Israel and a Warning from Ramallah
Israel may interpret Jordan’s ban on the Brotherhood as evidence that Abdullah will comply with outside demands. That perception could embolden Israel to escalate its efforts, particularly its ambitions to annex parts of the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas once believed appeasing Washington would secure his legacy, but he has found himself increasingly ignored. Trump has proposed dismantling the U.S. security coordination office, leaving Abbas diplomatically isolated. If Abdullah follows that same trajectory, he risks sharing the same fate and losing his historical relevance.
The Hashemite Kingdom’s Gamble for Western Approval
Jordan’s decision to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood fits a pattern established at the kingdom’s foundation during the collapse of Ottoman rule. From its earliest days, the monarchy secured its position through cooperation with imperial powers, prioritizing regional loyalties shaped by British interests over broader Arab aspirations. Today’s alignment with Washington mirrors that legacy, presenting a government that often responds more readily to external patrons than domestic sentiment. The Brotherhood ban signals not just a tactical misstep, but the continuation of a state model built to serve Western strategies in the region. As that model strains under modern pressure, the kingdom is facing a reckoning that reshapes how its legitimacy is viewed at home and abroad.
