Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

The Obama Administration Opens Formal Contacts With the Muslim Brotherhood

Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Besides explaining what the Muslim Brotherhood is and has always been, the major point of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the West Sabotage America was to warn that this day was coming. And so it has come: Reuters reports that the Obama administration has established a policy of formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is the world’s most important Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly committed to the destruction of the United States and the West. In typical Obama fashion, this disastrous decision to engage America’s avowed enemies has been couched as the mere continuation of prior policy: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is reported to have confirmed that the U.S. would “resume” contacts which had “occurred in recent years.” But make no mistake about it, this is a new policy. 

The contacts that have occurred in recent years have been outside of U.S. policy — at the urging of leftists in the State Department, the intelligence community, the commentariat, and, in particular, the Obama White House. They have long campaigned for a policy of “engagement” with the Muslim Brotherhood (including Hamas, the terrorist organization that is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch). They’ve needed to do this campaigning because it was American policy not to deal with the Brotherhood — dealing with the Brothers empowers them, bolstering their status as leaders of mainstream Islam and legitimizing their agenda, which calls for Islamicizing societies, ultimately establishing a global caliphate, destroying Israel, and incrementally expanding sharia throughout the West.

This day has been coming since President Obama’s first day in office. In 2007-08, the Brotherhood was proved by the Justice Department to be engaged in what the Brotherhood itself describes as a “grand jihad” aimed at the “elimination and destruction of Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” The title of my book was not my words but theirs — taken from their internal memoranda, seized by the FBI from the home of a Brotherhood official. The Brotherhood’s anti-U.S. strategy was not news to anyone who follows Islamist movements, but the proof for all to see came during the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, during which several defendants were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas. Supporting Hamas’s terrorist war against Israel has been the Brotherhood’s highest priority in the U.S. since Hamas was formed, and trial evidence showed unmistakably that the leading Islamist organizations in the U.S. — almost all either formed by or having ties to the Brotherhood — were complicit.

Among the most important of these is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was designated as an unindicted coconspirator by the Justice Department and shown by prosecutors to have housed the HLF in its offices and to have helped it transfer money to Hamas fronts overseas. Yet, only a few months after the convictions, the Obama administration dispatched Valerie Jarrett, the president’s close friend and top political adviser, to give the keynote address at ISNA’s 2009 convention. This was only the most notorious of the administration’s outreach episodes involving groups (such as CAIR) which were shown to be Brotherhood affiliates and Islamist apologists. Indeed, by the time of Ms. Jarrett’s appearance at the ISNA convention, ISNA president Ingrid Mattson had been chosen to speak at Obama’s inauguration ceremonies, and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan (who has referred to Hezbollah as a “liberation movement”) was named assistant secretary for policy development at Obama’s Homeland Security Department.

At around the same time, at his 2009 Cairo speech — which was one big “outreach” to Islamists — the administration infuriated the Mubarak regime by inviting Brotherhood members to attend, even though the Brotherhood was then a formally banned organization under Egyptian law. Ultimately, of course, the administration pushed Mubarak aside even though it was clear by then that his fall would usher the Brotherhood into power. That will happen in the upcoming fall elections, the Brothers having successfully lobbied for a rapid election schedule that will prevent the formation of any meaningful secular opposition.

In the meantime, the administration has worked feverishly to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism and support of terrorism. As I have argued, Obama officials were preparing the ground for the Brotherhood’s ascendancy. They understand the political consequences of this catastrophe for the president … if the American people come to recognize what the Brotherhood is and how deeply it despises America and the West.

Thus, as the uprising in Egypt intensified, Obama adviser Bruce Reidel was quick to pen an essay called “Don’t fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” (to which I responded here on NRO). James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, then proceeded to insult Congress’s intelligence — and badly damage his reputation for seriousness — by branding the Brotherhood as a moderate, “largely secular” organization. (Besides being known as the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization’s motto remains, “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope — Allahu Akbar!“)

Only a few months before Clapper’s testimony, the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi, called for “jihad and sacrifice” in confronting the United States and Israel. He proclaimed that America is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise.” The enthusiastic endorsement of violence, particularly against Israel, would be surprising only to those who drink the Obama Kool-Aid that claims the Brotherhood has renounced violence.

As I have repeatedly pointed out — and as Barry Rubin argues in this excellent analysis of the new Obama policy — the Brotherhood has always favored violence where it would advance the Islamist cause; it tactically renounced violence against the Egyptian regime because it would have prompted ruinous retaliation from Mubarak and because the Brotherhood was making progress through the political process and influence over Egyptian institutions.

Quite apart from its long history of violence, the Brotherhood has long endorsed terrorism (which it calls “resistance”) against Israel and against Western forces operating in Islamic countries. The Brothers also favor an inside/outside strategy against the U.S. and Europe — exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by Islamist terrorists like al Qaeda to exercise outsize influence over American and Western policy-makers while advancing the sharia agenda through “peaceful” political means. It was not surprising, then, that the Brotherhood’s former Supreme Guide, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, praised Osama bin Laden as a “mujahid” (a jihad warrior) in a 2008 interview — adding that, though the Brotherhood objected to al Qaeda’s targeting of civilians, “I support its activities against the occupiers,” and concluding that bin Laden deserved praise for his “sincerity in resisting the occupation,” a point on which the al Qaeda leader was said to be “close to Allah on high.”

The Brotherhood’s approach is popular in Egypt and throughout the Islamic Middle East. Indeed, shortly after Mubarak fell, the Brotherhood’s leading jurisprudent, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, was given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he had been banned from inciting Islamist revolutionaries for 30 years. The sheikh is the most influential Islamic cleric in the world. Drawing on classical sharia teaching, he instructs that Islam and secularlism cannot co-exist. Moreover, Qaradawi has promised that Islam will “conquer” America and Europe, he calls for the annihilation of Israel by violent jihad, he incited the murderous rioting over the Danish cartoon depictions of Mohammed, and he has issued fatwas approving suicide bombings and the terrorist murder of American troops and support personnel in Iraq. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that the State Department has nevertheless long regarded Qaradawi as an “intelligent and thoughtful voice from the region” who is “an important figure that deserves our attention” (to quote Alberto Fernandez, State’s director of public diplomacy in the Middle East during the Bush years).

Since Mubarak’s fall, the Brotherhood has worked toward formally reestablishing Egypt’s ties with Iran and for ending the peace agreement with Israel. The Brotherhood is also behind the “Peace Flotilla” expeditions in which Islamists and Leftists join together in efforts to break Israel’s blockade against Hamas in Gaza — the American part of the effort is being spearheaded by such old Obama friends former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, Code Pink founder Jodi Evans, and Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn — and the planned U.S. ship is called, yes, The Audacity of Hope

Meanwhile, the Obama Justice Department has pulled the plug on further prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates identified as coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case. And now we’ll be formally engaged with the Brotherhood overseas just as we’ve been formally embracing its operatives in our own country. The Grand Jihad is right on schedule.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   27

EXPAND  

   06/30/11 11:05

We shouldn't be surprised given the people the Obama administration choose to appease and those they intentionally offend.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
baylor2009
   06/30/11 11:08

I'm not sure that I follow your logic. Assuming you are right that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a major if not dominant strain of Islam that is or will guide the actions of major players in the Middle East, why shouldn't we have lines of communication open with them? Is radical Islam more of an existential threat than the USSR was? Yet we had regular communications with Moscow that turned out to be very valuable. Is the argument that the Russians were reasonable (such that diplomacy was a viable tool) in a way that Islamists are not (such that diplomacy is not valuable)?

I get your point that we need to stop making excuses and avoiding the hostile and violent nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist affiliates. I agree that the Administration has been blatantly dishonest and counterproductive on that score. But I do think that there is a real tension in your argument. If the radicals are real players, then we need to be able to talk to them. Talking to them doesn't provide them stature, since under your theory, they already have stature. We're aren't making them players by talking to them. Rather, we're talking to them because they are players already.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Paul Kotik
   06/30/11 12:16

Perhaps I can provide a reconciling: there is no basis for the assumption that direct interaction with an adversary cannot be harmful. The idea that "it can't hurt to talk" may not be true.

In the case of a relentless adversary, that is, one who has no interest in reconciliation, accomodation or co-existence, direct interaction may expose one to strategic deceptions to to which one otherwise would not be. As a democracy, we may also expose ourselves to manipulation of public opinion by tactics that otherwise would not be available to the adversary. Direct interaction offers the adversary opportunities to delay or moderate our exercise of other options, such as direct assault, by dangling promises of reward.

The Brotherhood, and Islamism in general, certainly appear to be relentless and uninterested in accomodation or detente of any kind. That relentlessness is, indeed, a central and defining feature of Islamism. The Brotherhood may be a player, but opening direct interaction may make them a more formidable player by changing the perceptions and behavior of other players. It may be true, for example, that other players perceive our direct interaction with the Brotherhood as a sign of weakness, whether it is in fact or is not, and cleave to the strong horse.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
baylor2009
   06/30/11 14:08

Psul,

I take your point that there are risks that may come from dialogue. I don't disagree. I just think that most of those risks are best dealt with by a clear head. Certainly things with the USSR ran a lot more smoothly when we had a President who recognized both that it was an Evil Empire and that it was a player that we have to talk to. I think that the same may prove true here.

Let's not also recognize that Islamists face similar risks. Talking with us may undermine their ability to paint us as the Great Satan down the line. It also opens up a way for us to make clear to them that there are real consequences for their actions.

I'm not saying that Obama is going to use the tools wisely (though perhaps under a broken clock theory he may). I'm simply saying that the argument that runs 1) they are big and scary players, so 2) we shouldn't talk to them, isn't terribly convincing.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 15:27

There may be some benefit in the eyes of Westerners to opening a dialog with the MB, but, to Islamists, it is only weakness on our part, and a shrewd strategic move on theirs.

From the days of Muhammad, Islamists feel no compunction to adhering to agreements and treaties if it means the further spread of Islam.

To the true Islamists, a dialog of the West with the MB is only a one-way victory, and it's not ours.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
TexasVetgal
   07/02/11 11:08

American did not have "open lines of communication" yes, we spoke on matters of security and threat, but a vast majority of the communications between two behemoth arsonals of weapons was "posturing and brinkmanship"!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 11:12
They refused to talk to Fox News, but will engage with any of America's enemies.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 11:21

This announcement comes after news that Jewish donors are reluctant to contribute to Obama's reelection campaign.

Coincidence?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 11:38

Erik Larsen: 'In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin'

Nonfiction

Be alert for the sounds of bells ringing as I relate the subject of this great book. A Chicago college professor (ding ding) is tabbed to be the next US ambassador to Germany and is sent to 1933 Berlin with his family. This Chicago college professor (ding ding) is so incredibly naïve (ding ding) he reports back glowingly on the growing Nazi movement and Germany in general. As the SA, SS, Gestapo, Hitler and his minions draw the noose tighter around the Jews, this professor-turned-ambassador is the last to catch on to the facts of things (ding ding). In his naivety our professor believes that, by virtue of his education and personal moral and intellectual rectitude (ding ding), he can get chancellor Hitler to alter Germany’s ominous course simply by meeting with him and nudging him to moderation in his politics (ding ding), and is astounded when his attempts to do so fail miserably (ding ding). He is surprised and appalled to learn that Hitler and other Nazi functionaries have been less than honest with him (ding ding), that they reject his morally and intellectually superior positions and suggestions (ding ding), and have actually used him to further their own agenda (ding ding ding ding DING DING DING DING).

If it hasn’t or isn’t already been considered for review by someone with the National Review, it needs to be - the relevance to current events is remarkable. Excellent read.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 11:48

@HenryHawkins: The only difference is that Obama, far from being naive about the Brotherhood, is quite likely aware of their evil aims and is in sympathy with them.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 11:57

My question is this: do we have another cold war on our hands? I suspect the answer is yes, but we don’t necessarily know what stage we’re in.

What parallel can be drawn between what happened in the soviet sphere between 1913 and the end of ww2 and in the jihadist world between the beginning of the oil embargo in the 70s and perhaps now with the end of Mubarak. The soviets were generally causing a lot of trouble around the world all the while consolidating power in those formative years. They were an amorphous thing at the beginning and a threat recognized only by a few, until the nuclear era when the US wised up and recognized the reality of soviet intentions (which are now being ignored). Is the end of Mubarak and the end of secularism in Egypt the equivalent of the beginning of a new cold war? Is Obama intentionally encouraging a consolidation of jihadist power as a way to give the state department someone to actually negotiate with or does it merely give the appearance of having someone to negotiate with?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 13:14

The analogy to the USSR-USA cold war is inapt. That nuclear confrontation was a standoff because of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction.

MAD is not a deterrent to those who would gladly, actually wish to, die for their cause. The West's conflict with Islam is a hot war now & will only get hotter as time passes - and as more & more Islamic states obtain nuclear weapons.

How do you negotiate with someone who would joyfully turn his country into a nuclear wasteland if that is the consequence of destroying Satan - "Great" or "Little".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Bugg
   06/30/11 12:12

We need to have a GOP nominee who makes this an issue and understands the threat. If ths said nominee pulls some "Up with Muslims!" nonsense instead of speaking out about this dangerous idiocy we are in deep trouble.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 12:20

Has American had enough of the Jive Turkey in Chief?

Let's hope so.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 13:40

Why does Barack Obama hate free people?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/02/11 16:43

Obama probably doesn't hate free people; he just wants to rule them. What he hates is the concept of individual rights that stands in his way.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 14:42

If I grasp Angelo Codevilla in his book, 'Advice to War Presidents': the neocons believe in rolling the Middle Eastern enemy flat and rebuilding & re-shaping them in a democratic image, in hopes they will be like current western nations which do not tend to initiate hostilities. The pragmatists think it's best not to upset the shaky applecarts, and leave well enough alone (hey, they've remained dancing on the edge of losing stability for decades, why can't they stay that way a a bit longer?) And the liberals believe in talking to them and giving them whatever they want, in the vain belief they will be pacified and quit throwing tantrums. Now the Obama administration is treading their well-worn ideological path, as Mr McCarthy has predicted. The Obamites are certainly not going to make any new mistakes, just the same old ones.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/30/11 15:09

Who are the candidates who get what Andrew McCarthy is saying, and beyond that are not afraid to make it an issue on par with the economic positions they've staked out for themselves as a candidate?

I want to know that whoever I cast my vote for in the GOP primaries is going to be up to the job of reversing all the insane clown posse policies of this terrorist-embracing administration.

The USA economy is important, but it is a moot point if we continue down this path in domestic and foreign policy re: Islamists.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/05/11 11:26

That candidate (for president 2012) is HERMAN CAIN. He doesn't have his head in the sand about the Muslim threat. He has stated on record that he will not appoint Muslims should he be elected. His reasoning: CREEPING SHARIA. This is the guy I want in the oval office.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/05/11 11:28

That would be HERMAN CAIN. He has stated he will not appoint Muslims if he is elected because of CREEPING SHARIA law. That's the guy I want.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact