News

A silent explosion

Amman, April 23, 2025: The skies over Amman are overcast, with a dense sandstorm reducing visibility across the city. In the afternoon, Jordanian authorities announced on national television that the government has imposed a ban on the long-established Muslim Brotherhood.​

This announcement follows the recent high-profile arrest of 16 members of the organisation. Jordanian security forces, including the General Intelligence Directorate, discovered drones, explosives, weapons, rockets, and terrorist plans in the homes of the accused. Some of the detainees had been under surveillance since 2021. On national television, three defendants publicly discussed their plans, ideology, and connections, which extended to Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. This rare public spectacle significantly worsened the situation of the suspects and their organisation.​

Implications of the Ban for Jordan's Future

The prohibition of the Muslim Brotherhood signifies not only a domestic political upheaval but also a profound shift in the Kingdom's strategic direction. For decades, despite frequent tensions, the organisation had been an integral part of Jordan's political and social fabric. Its charitable activities, educational programmes, and religious networks had a substantial influence, particularly in the country's poorer regions.​

With this ban, the government is making a definitive break, openly opposing any form of Islamist organisation, even those that do not explicitly advocate for violence. The rationale provided is that the Brotherhood is no longer merely an opposition movement but has become a "security threat." This assessment is likely based not only on the recent discovery of weapons but also on regional developments. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had previously designated the organisation as terrorist in nature.​

Jordan's decision serves as a cautionary note to Western nations: While the Muslim Brotherhood often presents itself as a pious reformist movement, behind its democratic and social rhetoric lie radical objectives, such as the establishment of an Islamist societal system. In the Middle East, it skillfully exploits religious sentiments, whereas in the West, it leverages liberal structures for influence. Although the organisation no longer publicly emphasizes violence, its preferred battleground is now political and cultural. Its network has extended into Western societies, posing a threat not only to freedom of expression but also to the stability of democratic systems.​

In the short term, this move is likely to escalate tensions within Jordan. Protests, including those from previously apolitical Islamic groups, may ensue. In the long term, however, the government appears to be aiming for a restructuring of the political landscape: Fewer religiously influenced parties and more room for a moderately nationalist, particularly economically focused agenda.​

The success of this strategy depends on the government's ability to establish alternatives to the Brotherhood, both in social services and political discourse. Failure to do so could lead to the radicalisation of previously moderate groups, especially due to the social void left by the Brotherhood's departure.​

Impact on the Political Wing: The Islamic Action Front

The political arm of the Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front (IAF), might become particularly affected by the ban. The largest opposition party in Jordan's parliament, it had played a significant role in past elections. Its connections to the umbrella organisation had always raised suspicions with the government, even though it officially distanced itself from violence and was legally a separated entity from the Brotherhood.​

With the ban in place, the IAF's structures could be dismantled, and its members legally prosecuted. Many of its supporters may be forced underground or compelled to join new, non-Islamist groups. Critics warn of a potential democratic vacuum if no legal religious-conservative voice remains in parliament. Conversely, the ban could also symbolically strengthen the IAF, portraying it as a martyr party, a victim of an authoritarian state. In a region where political repression often led to radicalisation, this risk should not be overlooked.​

Osama Essa, founder of the liberal news platform ShezoMedia, notes, "The Jordanian government has shown remarkable patience with the Muslim Brotherhood over the years, especially considering their repeated attempts to manipulate the Jordanian public." However, he expresses concern about the long-term effects of the ban, fearing that the group may retreat further underground and radicalise itself and its followers. Such a development would be disastrous.​

International Reactions: Between Understanding and Caution

Jordan's ban on the Muslim Brotherhood has elicited mixed reactions from the international community. Western governments, notably the United States of America and several EU states, face a dilemma: While they welcome measures to combat violent extremist groups, they also view the Brotherhood as a potential dialogue partner, especially in countries where it has engaged politically. In the past, nations like the U.S. and the UK for instance did not classify the Brotherhood's political wing as a terrorist organisation, a stance differing from that of Gulf states.​

Washington has exercised restraint in its initial response, urging the "preservation of political plurality" while emphasising "every state's right to defend itself against security threats."​

In contrast, Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have expressed strong support for Jordan's actions. For them, the Muslim Brotherhood has long been a red line, not only for security reasons but also due to ideological differences: the movement advocates for a political Islam that fundamentally challenges monarchies and authoritarian regimes.​

Egypt, which banned and dismantled the Brotherhood in 2013, views Jordan's actions as a form of solidarity against destabilising forces in the region.​

King Abdullah II's Role: A Diplomatic Strategist Balancing Stability and Reform

King Abdullah II. stands at the forefront of this development. For years, he has been perceived as a guarantor of stability in a politically volatile environment. The ban on the Muslim Brotherhood — an organisation that was, at times, part of the institutional framework — is a courageous, albeit controversial, move.

Abdullah II. appears to be pursuing a dual strategy: on the one hand, a decisive stance against extremist movements; on the other, reforms on various fronts, including economic liberalisation, targeted investment incentives, and a cautious opening toward technocratic, younger leadership figures within Parliament.

However, the room for maneuver is limited. Should the Jordanian public come to believe that political participation is being permanently curtailed, trust in state institutions may begin to erode. In the long term, this erosion could pose the greater social threat to the Kingdom.

The ban on the Muslim Brotherhood is more than a security policy — it is a message to the entire region. Jordan is taking a clear stance against political Islam, even at the risk of creating new social tensions. For the government, this move represents a precarious balancing act: between safeguarding state stability and the risk of putting other, more moderate forces towards extremism. The ban could well go down in history as a turning point — marking the moment Jordan decisively rejected political Islam. Whether this signals the beginning of a more stable and modern order or the onset of renewed tensions, however, remains to be assessed.