Jordan's Brotherhood crackdown: Will Amman's 'security' measures backfire?
Jordan’s decision to ban the Muslim Brotherhood marks a decisive shift in its security policy, but risks alienating key segments of its population and exacerbating political divisions ahead of the crown prince’s succession.
On 23 April, Jordan made a bold and controversial move by officially banning the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities across the country. The government ordered the closure of the Brotherhood’s headquarters, confiscation of its assets, and arrest of several individuals connected to the organization.
This action marks a decisive shift in the kingdom’s security strategy, one that has been years in the making. While it may provide short-term stability, it also risks alienating large segments of Jordanian society and complicating Amman's delicate political and regional balancing act.
The illegal Brotherhood
The decision to ban the Brotherhood did not come out of the blue. Over the years, Jordan had taken a cautious approach, balancing tolerance for the Muslim Brotherhood’s political activities with growing concerns over its transnational agenda.
However, the Brotherhood’s once declining electoral influence – especially following the 2020 Court of Cassation ruling, which declared the group illegal – was only one part of the equation. The increasing security challenges posed by the Brotherhood’s militant factions, combined with the group’s ideological alignment with regional actors, compelled Jordan to move decisively.
The catalyst for this dramatic shift was the discovery of “Cell 16,” a network of alleged Brotherhood sympathizers planning to manufacture rockets and drones for use against Jordanian targets. This network, which reportedly was trained in Beirut, represented a direct challenge to Jordan’s internal security, violating what the authorities described as existential red lines.
After months of surveillance and intelligence gathering, the government’s hand was forced. The crackdown was swift, with raids and arrests carried out across multiple cities, targeting individuals believed to be involved in these activities.
US pressure and regional tensions
While the crackdown can be viewed as an internal security measure, its timing and broader political implications suggest that it was also influenced by external pressures, notably from the US.
Over the years, Washington has closely monitored Amman’s stance on the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly given the group's ties to Hamas and other regional Islamist movements. As the US administration pursued its own regional priorities – especially in relation to its policy on Hamas – Jordan’s decision to act against the Brotherhood aligns with American interests in countering Islamist movements.
Jordan’s actions also mirror a broader trend in the region, particularly among Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and even Egypt, which have long designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
By aligning itself more closely with these countries, Jordan solidifies its place in a regional coalition committed to curbing the influence of political Islam.
This move, while positioning Amman firmly within this regional security framework, also signals its intent to assert control over its domestic narrative, particularly ahead of a planned royal transition.
Internal backlash: A deepening divide
The decision has not been without controversy. Critics, particularly within the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the Brotherhood’s political wing, have voiced strong opposition, warning that the ban represents an assault on political pluralism.
The IAF, after all, produced a stunning victory in national elections last September, tripling its representation in Jordan's parliament, by offering a pro-Palestine stance that contrasted sharply with the monarchy's actions over Israel's war on Gaza.
The polls marked the first time that national voting was conducted using a proportional representation system instead of the one-man-one-vote framework that favored tribes over political parties.
MP Saleh al-Armouti, a prominent IAF member, described Amman's latest move as a “dangerous escalation” that could further destabilize Jordan. He warned that the government’s decision to suppress the Brotherhood’s political activities, instead of confronting them through dialogue, would only deepen divisions within society.
Armouti and other critics argue that the government’s crackdown risks radicalizing moderate elements within the Brotherhood and could push disaffected youth toward extremism. The Brotherhood’s grassroots network has long provided social services and political representation to marginalized communities, particularly among Jordan’s Palestinian population – and around halfof Jordanian nationals are of Palestinian origin.
By removing this outlet for political expression, the government risks further alienating these communities and exacerbating an already volatile political environment.
Defending the realm
Despite these criticisms, the Jordanian government claims that its actions were legal and necessary to preserve the kingdom’s internal stability.
Speaking to The Cradle, a senior government official insists that the measures were based on extensive intelligence operations and were not politically motivated:
"We recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is not merely an organization but an ideology. Dealing with it requires a comprehensive, long-term approach aimed at protecting national identity, preventing foreign interference, and maintaining social cohesion."
The government’s justification, therefore, revolves around protecting Jordan’s national identity and sovereignty, while emphasizing that the Brotherhood's ideology presents a threat to the kingdom’s social fabric and security.
The source also notes that materials seized during the raids are undergoing thorough review, which could lead to broader investigations into illicit financing and foreign ties.
However, the significance of this move transcends domestic boundaries. Sources close to the security establishment inform The Cradle that there have been attempts by regional powers – without naming them – to exploit internal unrest with the aim of destabilizing Jordan’s monarchy.
One Jordanian official says, “Some regional forces are trying to tamper with our national security.”
In this context, banning the Muslim Brotherhood was not merely an internal measure but a pre-emptive strike against external meddling.
Preparing for a royal succession
The crackdown also aligns with Jordan’s ongoing preparations for a royal transition. Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah, the King’s son and heir, is expected to take the throne in the coming years. The decision to move decisively against the Brotherhood is seen by many analysts as part of a broader strategy to eliminate potential sources of opposition to the crown prince’s future reign.
The government has long sought to neutralize the Brotherhood’s influence, particularly in the context of its organizational strength and ability to mobilize public support.
In 2020, Jordan’s Court of Cassation ruled the Brotherhood illegal after it failed to rectify its legal status, resulting in the transfer of its assets to the officially licensed Muslim Brotherhood Association (established in 2015).
Yet the recent measures reflect more than simple judicial enforcement; they signal a broader political strategy to neutralize forces seen as destabilizing during a critical period for the kingdom.
By taking action now, the government hopes to avoid the kind of internal instability that has plagued other Arab monarchies during times of succession.
Amman also had to deal with the succession crisis in 2021 involving Prince Hamzah bin Hussein, whose house arrest and subsequent public reconciliation with King Abdullah II revealed underlying tensions within the Hashemite royal family.
As the monarchy seeks to cement its legitimacy, removing the Brotherhood from the political arena is seen as a way to present a united front in anticipation of Crown Prince Hussein’s ascension.
Aligning with Arab monarchies
Beyond its internal considerations, Jordan’s move sends a clear message to its regional neighbors: Jordan is committed to combating political Islam and is willing to align with countries that share its security concerns.
It is important to note that Arab monarchies, since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, have sought to avoid a repeat performance in other West Asian kingdoms, and have banded to prevent the dethroning of kings by grassroots Islamist movements.
This decision further solidifies Jordan’s position within the broader regional framework led by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, all of which have long viewed the Brotherhood as a destabilizing force. Amman's regional shift was underscored by last week’s security meeting in Damascus between Jordanian military officials and Syrian counterparts.
Ironically, this meeting, which focused on cross-border threats and extremist networks, signaled Amman’s willingness to strengthen ties with Islamist-led Syria in the face of shared security challenges.
Risks and rewards
Jordan’s actions represent a calculated risk. In the short term, they may achieve their goal of stabilizing the kingdom and curbing the influence of a potentially destabilizing ideological force.
However, the long-term consequences are far from clear. While the crackdown may reduce immediate threats to national security, it risks deepening political and social divisions within the kingdom. Critics argue that by eliminating one of the country’s most organized political movements, the government may create a vacuum that could be exploited by more radical forces.
As Jordan moves forward, the government faces a difficult choice. The crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood could be a turning point for the kingdom – an opportunity to reshape its political order and ensure its future stability.
However, it also presents the risk of further alienating key segments of society, particularly among the Palestinian population and young, disaffected Jordanians. In the coming years, Jordan’s leadership will have to decide whether this bold move will strengthen the kingdom or set it on a path of greater instability.
The state now faces the challenge of managing the consequences of this move – both in terms of potential alienation of key social groups and the risks of external exploitation.
The government must balance the need for security with the imperative to maintain a cohesive society. The real test for Jordan will be whether this calculated risk will fortify its increasingly compromised sovereignty or further fragment its internal fabric.
No comments:
Post a Comment