The debate over including the “Muslim Brotherhood” in the US terrorist lists has taken on a new twist since Mike Pompeo took office as US Secretary of State. His predecessor, Rex Tillerson, had expressed reservations about this issue when he took office.
At a recent forum at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Pompeo recently spoke about continuing discussions on the measure, saying the US is evaluating the measure to make sure it is implemented “properly.” As the topic came up again, the comments also raised questions about when the Americans will take this action.
It is known that Pompeo was one of eight deputies who introduced a bill in Congress asking the Obama administration to include the Brotherhood on the terrorist list. He also knows a great deal and has evidence that supported his position towards the organization years ago, both in terms of the group’s suspicious relations with terrorist organizations, and in terms of its involvement in the violence and chaos in such countries as Yemen, Syria and Libya. Moreover, American reports indicate that links exist between the Brotherhood and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
These relations have resulted in the condemnation of the Brothers and their affiliates in several Arab countries for the murder of Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani.
Beyond any doubt, the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood organization are sneaking into the global financial system. The organization has suspicious links in different parts of the world, particularly in Europe. Political calculations on the subject largely explain the delay of the Trump administration in placing the Brotherhood on the American terrorist lists, banning its activities and freezing its money in the US.
At the same meeting, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo clearly expressed his views on the issue. He said that in his view, the matter is more sensitive than what he has seen as a Kansas congressman, explaining that dealing with the issue from inside the administration is different from dealing with it from outside.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was leading the debate, argued that too. “We’re still trying to figure out how to do it. There are elements within the Muslim Brotherhood that are definitely terrorists. They’re on the terrorist list. We’re trying to make sure that we put them on it properly. We are defining the issue correctly and we are ensuring the legal basis for that.”
Pompeo is understandably talking about the difference between his current position and the one he held as a member of Congress. But the legal basis for such an approach and the existence of precise information on which the inclusion process depends do not seem as difficult as Pompeo suggests.
There is evidence that decisions to include other organizations, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and others, were taken quickly. It did not take that long to do the research.
It is no secret that there are many media reports about the Brothers’ interest networks in the US and other Western countries. The issue is, however, subject to balances of interests and agreements among the major poles of the US Administration itself, especially with the presence of relationships and interests with countries that sponsor the Brothers’ organization, such as Turkey.
In politics, quite naturally, each step has its profit and loss account. But as far as the Brotherhood is concerned, banning this organization and listing it as a terrorist organization is likely to dry up the sources of extremism and terrorism. Rather, the legal aspect of the matter should not really be seen as an obstacle. Rather, the real obstacle is the political calculations surrounding the US Decision that was postponed years ago.
It is also understandable that the interests of the great powers have been mixed up with Islamist political groups for decades. In these countries, some people still bet on these groups to fulfill certain roles and realize their strategic interests under certain circumstances and within certain time frames.
But people have spoken their minds about such groups and rejected them outright. They no longer have the raison d’être that they created in the past, be it because of the growing awareness of societies, finding out the truth about these groups and their hidden agendas, or because these organizations’ true showed their true colours and involvement in violent and bloodthirsty practices and created dozens of extremist, terrorist, violent and murderous organizations under different names and slogans.
In the face of the threat of terror and fanaticism, we cannot simply hold the stick in the middle, nor can we try to reconcile dangers and interests. The disadvantages of keeping silent about terrorist organizations outweigh the potential or desired gains from such organizations in the short and long term. A resolute attitude on the part of the US towards the Brotherhood would be meaningful in their relations with Arab and Islamic countries.
