Why Another Attempt by Trump to Term Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Outfit?

US President Donald Trump has once again moved to classify select branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations. This has reopened an old debate - is this a necessity or a politically motivated classification aimed at reshaping US engagement with the outfit.

Trump’s push reflects both a strategic calculation and a political impulse. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a sprawling and diverse movement that mixes religious activism, social services, and political participation.

Over nearly a century, it has evolved into a constellation of national chapters, each shaped by its own environment. Some branches participate peacefully in politics; others have drifted into confrontation or splintered into militancy. This complexity is precisely what makes blanket designations controversial.

Trump’s argument is straightforward: certain Brotherhood factions — particularly in Egypt, the Levant, and parts of North Africa — engage in or enable violence, undermine regional stability, and maintain ideological ties with militant groups such as Hamas. His camp sees the Brotherhood as the “mother ship” of modern political Islam, capable of inspiring radicalism even if a given chapter claims to operate peacefully.

For Trump, the designation strengthens counterterrorism posture and aligns the US with governments that have long viewed the Brotherhood as an existential threat.

But critics warn that the move is far riskier than it appears. The Brotherhood is not a single command-and-control structure. Lumping all its branches together under a terrorism label ignores the internal diversity and may end up targeting groups that operate legally, contest elections, or run social welfare networks. Such a sweeping designation risks criminalizing civil society, shutting down charities, or ensnaring individuals with loose associations — all without improving security.

There is also the geopolitical cost. Many US partners in the Middle East suppress the Brotherhood not because of terrorism, but because it challenges entrenched power structures. By echoing these regimes uncritically, Washington may be empowering authoritarianism rather than isolating true extremists. The move could also fuel anti-US sentiment by portraying America as hostile to political Islam in all its forms.

Trump’s latest attempt is therefore less about clarity and more about convenience. It may satisfy a political constituency, but it blurs the line between legitimate security concerns and ideological overreach — a distinction the US can’t afford to ignore.

 

Have All Abandoned Hamas?

The question of whether Hamas has been completely abandoned by its allies deserves a nuanced answer. While the militant-political organization is under unprecedented isolation and financial strain, it has not been left entirely friendless. What has changed is not the existence of support, but the depth and nature of it. The few remaining backers are more pragmatic and cautious than ideological.

Iran remains the most steadfast supporter of Hamas, but even Tehran’s approach has shifted from enthusiasm to calculation. The Islamic Republic continues to provide limited training, intelligence, and weapons through its network that includes Hezbollah and the IRGC. Yet, Hamas no longer occupies the central role it once did in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” Tehran’s strategic priority today is containing Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and maintaining deterrence in Syria and Iraq. In that equation, Hamas has become an auxiliary, not a frontline force.

Qatar, long seen as Hamas’s financial lifeline, has also recalibrated its policy. The unmonitored cash deliveries to Gaza that sustained Hamas’s governance structure are now being rerouted through the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Doha seeks to retain its role as a mediator rather than an outright patron. That shift leaves Hamas with a smaller and more conditional stream of funds — insufficient to maintain administrative control in a war-torn enclave.

Turkey’s support, meanwhile, has settled into the realm of rhetoric. President Erdoğan continues to speak forcefully for Palestinian rights, but Ankara avoids concrete steps that could jeopardize its economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Turkey’s relationship with Hamas has become largely symbolic — a political shield rather than a material one.

Across the Arab world, the mood has changed dramatically. Egypt views Hamas as a destabilizing factor on its Sinai frontier; Jordan and the Gulf monarchies see it as a residue of the Muslim Brotherhood; and Saudi Arabia, pursuing strategic normalization with Israel, has little appetite for association. The UAE, a key Arab power, treats Hamas as a security threat rather than a liberation movement. This new regional consensus marks a profound isolation for the group.

Yet, Hamas is not entirely defeated. It continues to command thousands of fighters, retains limited weapons stockpiles, and still projects control over parts of Gaza. More importantly, popular sympathy for the Palestinian cause across the Muslim world remains deeply rooted. But sympathy does not translate into resources. Without substantial state sponsorship, Hamas is now sustained mainly by resilience, underground networks, and a sense of defiance rather than structured external support.

In essence, Hamas stands at a crossroads. Its godfathers have not fully abandoned it, but their backing has turned conditional and cautious. The movement survives, but in a diminished, more isolated form — powerful enough to persist, yet too constrained to dominate. The age of ideological patronage is ending; what remains is a movement fighting for relevance amid the ruins it once ruled.

 

Arab Silence on Iran Sanctions: Hypocrisy at Its Peak

When Western powers tighten the noose of sanctions on Iran, one would expect Muslim nations—bound by faith and shared history—to object. Yet the Arab capitals remain silent, some even nodding in approval. Why? Because geopolitics has conveniently buried the idea of the Ummah.

For decades, Arab regimes have painted Iran not as a fellow Muslim state but as a sectarian rival, a destabilizing Shia power encroaching on their Sunni domains. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, Tehran’s fingerprints unsettle Arab rulers. For them, US-led sanctions are not injustice—these are containment.

Add to this the dependency on Washington. The Gulf monarchies thrive on American protection, arms, and trade. To defy US diktats is to risk the very foundations of their security. So they remain mute, even when sanctions cripple ordinary Iranians.

These same states cry foul over Palestine, condemn Western double standards in Gaza, and rally Muslim solidarity—only to abandon it when it comes to Iran. The truth is simple - Arab rulers see a weakened Iran as good for oil markets, good for their regimes, and good for their new friends in Tel Aviv.

Sanctions on Iran are discriminatory, yes. But the bigger betrayal is the silence of Arab leaders who claim to defend Muslim dignity yet quietly cheer when one of their own is strangled.