Do You Expect There to be a Rapprochement between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood?

The “al-Arab al-Yawm” website posed the following question on its “Online Community” page: Do you expect there to be a rapprochement between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood? People from diverse social groups in the Arab and Islamic worlds contributed to this conversation.

Doctor Nasser al-Hamoud, vice chairman of the World Health Fund, said that the Middle Eastern region will likely witness a new transformation, and it is expected that the United States will have an influential role in shaping Middle Eastern politics, in alliance with the Islamist movement that is in its ascent to political power. This movement knows for certain that in order to guarantee that it maintain its local competitiveness and international acceptance, it cannot break the bonds of cooperation with Washington.

The young Islamist movement in North Africa knows that it cannot provoke Washington in the short term, so it will play the same game of interests and contradictions that made the United States of America an ally to democratically-oriented regimes, and at the same time an ally to Arab and Asian totalitarian regimes, not to mention those in Latin America and Africa.

The ascent of the Islamist movement at this stage comes from political skill resulting from previous experience that led to clashes with the existing regimes, not to mention Washington. Therefore, the movement will work to build relations with Europe and the United States until it matures and gains strength, and at that time it will be able to defend higher Arab national interests, the most prominent of which is the Palestinian issue. In the future, it will also control the necessary pressure points to enable it to make political and strategic gains regionally and internationally.

Washington welcomed the results of the Tunisian and Egyptian elections and also welcomed the Libyan rebels, most of whom have Islamist orientations. Yet the Islamists themselves are attempting to imitate the secular Islamist Turkish model that succeeded in forming relations with countries with conflicting policies. At the same time, Ankara succeeded in building a solid economy founded on competitiveness and transparency.

For his part, the Saudi Arabian participant Kamal Khalil said that a rapprochement will definitely come about and that the United States will actively strive for this rapprochement, in order to put the last link in the chain of events it is planning out: the existence of an Islamist power ruling the Middle East, which would make it easier to find a reason to attack these powers in order to finish off terrorism and impose full control on these countries. God save our Arab and Islamic nation from the hatred of these malevolent people, and from all evil.

On the other hand, Mohammad al-Sarhani wondered if there was ever estrangement between the Muslim Brotherhood and the United States, Britain and France. These days the relationship is distinguished by two things: first, the depth of the relationship and the advanced level of coordination of political positions; and second, the overtness of this rapprochement. In addition to that there is the financial, political and media support that the group has come to enjoy. If you look around, you will find that the countries that are characterized by subservience to the United States, Britain and France warmly embrace this group and are the ”money machine” for each of the Muslim Brotherhood’s branches. It would be nice if the question were phrased in the following way: What are the aspects and characteristics of the rapprochement between the Brotherhood and the United States? What is the Muslim Brotherhood asked to offer as a price for the support it is getting?

Yusuf Safi, a former bank manager, said: Rapprochement, in the sense of convergence and agreement on shared political goals, that’s a figment of the imagination! The Muslim Brotherhood has taken its approach to politics and life from the law of the Creator of the Universe and the magnanimity of His faithful Arab Prophet, but as for American policy, its source is the new Zionists’ ideology, typified by arrogance and preying on others’ destinies in accordance with the principle that the end justifies the means (look at the course of its political leader Bush, Jr., a proverbial liar of his age when he claimed prophet hood and begged God for the invasion of Iraq). And, as for rapprochement and meeting in the political wrestling ring, that is a given, since whoever wants to play the dirty game of politics has to confront the enemy and engage it in dialogue through whatever new power balance arises in the arena of political conflict. This is evident from the awakening and the popular Arab movement that has restored to this nation some of its luster among other nations.

In any case, these days are auspicious! The Muslim Brotherhood will certainly achieve transparency and shed light on its proposals, breaking the barrier of silence, and as much as possible lay the foundation for news media, in order to face this stage in which its enemies are casting doubts on it. Its enemies strive for these doubts, making great efforts to alter the facts and corner the Brotherhood into a place of suspicion worse than murder!

The Kurdish journalist, Hamid Banai, said that there should be a rapprochement between the Muslim Brotherhood and the world, not just with the United States, because the tide of change occurring in most of the region’s countries will not stop. It will continue, because the helpless peoples are fed up with the haughty rulers, and if the Brotherhood tried ruling the region with religious laws it would inevitably fail, because the awakening is enduring. It bore the fruit that was the toppling of the rulers stuck to their thrones, and it will bear more.

Yousef al-A’raj, on the other hand, said that the United States and Iran are the ones who brought about what is called the “Muslim Brotherhood,” and that there has thus been rapprochement or cooperation for a long time, and not just recently. This cooperation is in everything, even in the intelligence operations against the Arab peoples.

From another angle, Saleh al-Salama said that in politics there is neither permanent friendship nor permanent hostility, but rather permanent interests. This is what will happen in U.S. policy toward the Muslim Brotherhood — policy that will take into account Israeli interests, which dictate its reaction and the decisions it will take.

For his part, Ra’d Mohsin Mahmood said that yes, rapprochement is possible, because relations are governed by circumstances, timing and special interests. So, since the Muslim Brotherhood — especially in Egypt — is going to be holding high positions in the government, and there are relations with Israel that must become as strong as they were previously, the United States will certainly get closer to the Brotherhood. After all, the Brotherhood’s politics are not like the other religious movements that are closed to the United States. Rather, the Brotherhood thinks with an open mind about the United States and other countries, even Israel.

The Syrian researcher, Jalal Uqab Yahya, said that there are important developments that have taken place in recent years concerning how Western countries in general, and the United States in particular, deal with Islamists. These developments have tended toward the possibility of dealing and coexisting with (moderate) Islamists, the most prominent of which are represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, with its leadership and global organization. This is because most Islamist movements have experienced developments in their readiness to accept pluralism, the electoral democratic game and the peaceful transfer of power. Given this, the U.S. administration welcomes, and even supports, cooperation with these movements and sees them as a safety valve to prevent a descent toward Islamic and right-wing extremism. Therefore, it is no longer strange that it would support moderate Islamist movements and accept their rise to power.

Dr. Mohammed Musallam al-Husseini, a university professor, said that the United States has beat the drum of democracy in our homelands to such a degree that it has participated and interfered directly, whether with money, arms or even men. We cannot say that the United States is unaware of the fact that our democracy will give Islamist parties seats in the government. And we cannot believe that the United States sympathizes with Islamist parties regardless of their stripe or color.

This contradiction between desire and behavior makes political analysis and theorizing about it a field for those who want to analyze and theorize. For is the point of that contradiction to create a condition of stumbling, unrest and civil wars in the region or is it ignorance about the situation and U.S. politicians’ muddled understanding? Or is the Zionist lobby planning to distract the region with never-ending whirlpools so Israel ends up getting rid of any nearby threats? Or is Western democracy a punishment for those countries that take up slogans of resistance and revolutionary declarations and refuse to be the West’s mount or its tool? Thus democracy, it seems, is obligatory for some countries and forbidden for others, depending upon the United States’ situation and mood! Despite my passion for democracy and for the freedom of peoples, I reject it if it is brought by the United States. I do not believe that there will be a rapprochement between the United States and the Islamists in the region unless it is based on sectarian conflicts manufactured by the United States and carried out by agents and backward people in our homelands.

Jamal Saeed, for his part, said that a long time ago, ever since the Arab regimes that have collapsed made the Islamists into a bogeyman for the West, all the research circles started highlighting these movements. They fully studied the movements’ workings, structures and goals, realized their capabilities and came up with strategies to deal with them. In my belief, it is the directions set by the Islamists that will determine the United States’ method of dealing with them. There are countries with experience of Islamist rule: Sudan, Palestine and Iran. The United States dealt with them with harsh policies that in Sudan resulted in its division into two countries, created sites of tension in its west and east, targeted the northern Sudanese entity and strive to upset any stability in Sudan’s government. However, the government’s course of action created numerous openings through which the United States entered, to get to the center of manufacturing events in Sudan, and which it used to practice various forms of blackmail against the government. The government craved the United States’ favor more than God’s, so it lost everything and failed completely in the administrative field. The United States dealt with Hamas in Palestine with a policy of containment and driving away all the forces/powers in its vicinity, which made it face all the calamities of the world on its own. Also, everyone is aware of the U.S.-Iranian relationship, where Iran is a country that practices democracy more than any neighboring Arab country, but it is apparently an object of anger, and the contradictions in the region are exploited to provoke fears within the community of Arab states surrounding Iran. What is important now is how the Islamist movements will deal with the chronic problems of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Adel Bani-Issa (al-Ayyam newspaper) said that politics knows no interruption: Whenever interests converge, borders are erased. If the Brotherhood persists in power anywhere in the world, the United States will deal with it with professionalism. We remember the policy of rapprochement between the Afghan Islamists and the United States, when the latter mobilized the Islamists against Russia. So, with two terms having surfaced — Shiite sectarianism and Sunni sectarianism — the United States cannot lose all the Islamists at present because it is impossible for it to treat both parties as an enemy when it, launching from the lands of the Gulf, Turkey and Iraq, is beating the war drum against the Shiite camp in Iran. Having found that the Brotherhood enjoys wide popular support in the Arab world, the United States needs a truce with it in the current situation in order to catch its breath.

In the same context, the Syrian poet Milad Dib regarded the United States as the one that created fundamentalist Islam in response to communism, Arab nationalism and secularism. It is recreating it in another guise: populism.

Participant Adnan bin Jum’a said that rapprochement is the name of the game in the days of the new Arab order. What we are seeing is considered an upheaval that raises a lot of questions and eyebrows. The Islamists always appeared negatively in the Western media machine, biased toward the Israeli usurpers, and now the United States is sanctioning the Brotherhood’s uninterrupted ascent to power in the Arab regimes. The Islamists undertook applying the Western plan, and their work took many long years, but they appeared very rapidly, just like the Arab movies lacking a logical resolution acceptable to the sane mind.

Ateya Abu al-Sheikh said yes, in the event that it proves its existence in the political arena, I expect that rapprochement between the United States and the Brotherhood will take place. At that point, the United States will acknowledge its child that it forsook for years because the United States and those like it have a large network of influential people around the world to protect their interests in the world and especially in our countries. We know that the United States previously had under-the-table communication with the Brotherhood and, as for the future, the United States will bring this communication out into the open. I remind everyone that this greedy West, behind the Arab Spring, is keeping careful watch, making attacks and directing the victors, in order to secure its future in plundering our countries’ capacities. I believe that this treatment will not only be toward the Brotherhood, but toward all those who will lead their peoples in the near future, after the Arab Spring.

The Egyptian poet, Hassan al-Hijazi, added that the United States is a country of institutions and knows where its interests lie and how to ensure its influence and goals, something that the Muslim Brotherhood fully realizes. Indeed, it strived to help achieve this and is still striving for it — something that has been taking place for a while. Therefore, rapprochement is present as long interests are present and ensured for both parties.

For his part, the Algerian writer Abdul Kadir bin Abdullah said that the United States and the West have perhaps grown weary of confronting the Islamist movement in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Therefore, they can arrive at an innovative way to coexist with this widely popular movement, especially since the Brotherhood has mastered the game of political compromises. This may be visible in the pledge not to encroach upon U.S. strategic interests, since the past regimes, and those on their way out, failed to manage the United States’ Arab affairs by proxy, which was the reason the Arab Spring broke out and American interests came to be at a tipping point. In politics, there is no permanent hostility, just as there is no permanent friendship, and wherever you find interests of the United States you will find friends of the United States.

The Yemeni researcher, Nashwan Ghanem al-Rabi’I, remarked that the Muslim Brotherhood, with its moderate course based on taking the middle road, its non-extremist thought and its strong presence in the Arab arena, makes major countries — and the United States in particular, which is carefully considering its interests — open channels of dialogue with the Brotherhood. Rapprochement between the Brotherhood and the United States is in keeping with the United States’ firm belief that its unrelenting plan of treating anything Islamist as an enemy will only complicate matters and create an environment suitable for extremism. Moderation is required from the West today because its inflammatory, unrealistic rhetoric, and its ambitions in the region, are an obstacle to rapprochement with Islamists in general.

Izz al-Din Baitha, on the other hand, said that the upshot of it is that the United States is a country like the rest of the world’s countries: it seeks out its interests. It tested this out and made attempts with the peoples of the region through military activity. But, as it seems, the United States’ economy and spirit have been worn down, and it has lost much of its popularity in the region and the world. Thus, the United States is apparently trying to feel its way in the region by engaging in dialogue with various parties across the spectrum, whether they be Islamist or otherwise, especially after the Islamists obtained a majority in the Egyptian and Tunisian parliaments. The United States has realized that the Islamists have become an effective political power in the region and that the United States may benefit greatly from them if it is able to bring them into the Western fold. The United States may consider them the main players in the coming stage and may build its strategies to rely on this concept as long as the true ballot box and transparency do not show otherwise. Although the peoples of the region are still hesitant, that will not prevent dialogue between the Islamists and the United States, especially after the increasingly frequent declarations from the Islamists these days, which fall into the category of dialogue with the West. In general, the Islamists’ hand and effectiveness remain tied to their actual size as determined through the ballot box, and although our society’s Islamic culture may help them win a good number of seats, it may also turn against them if it finds a suitable alternative.

We must also remember what is taking place between the Western world (and those in its orbit) and the Eastern world (and those in its orbit), in terms of pulling back-and-forth and strife, since each team is striving to rally the largest number of the Arab region’s native population to its ranks. Here, the United States may find in the Islamists the alternative to those — whether states, parties or groups — who are putting themselves forth as representing Shariah or Islam. So, finally, it is my belief that the United States may talk with the Islamists and the like, especially after the wave of what is being called the Arab Spring.