How Close Is the U.S. to the Muslim Brotherhood?

rThere is no question that the US and the Muslim Brotherhood have been engaged in a dialogue during the course of the so-called Arab Spring, in regards to the form and structure of government in Egypt and perhaps in the Middle East as a whole. But the real question, which is frequently asked, is what kind of a role did the US exactly play in the Muslim Brotherhood’s arrival to power in Egypt? Is the US actually working alongside the Muslim Brotherhood to shape the future of the Middle East?

As we tackle this thorny topic, we will have to examine two theories or interpretations of events; the first claims that everything that happened, and will happen, is the outcome of a US plan, years in the making, and designed to hand the region over to Islamists for disruptive purposes. It claims that the Arab Spring uprisings are scenarios planned meticulously by Intelligence bodies in Washington. This assumption is a typical conspiracy theory taken to an extreme, where the world is supposedly a malleable putty that the US is shaping at its will. Though there may be some truth to this assumption, it is extremely exaggerated, and is far removed from reality. The second theory, which I have heard repeatedly from D.C. politicians, claims that the US did not support the Muslim Brotherhood, but rather coped with the new reality in the Middle East to protect its interests. This theory is not realistic either, as it assumes that the US, which is a major Power, is content to sit meekly and watch from the sidelines as events unfold.

However, there is a third hypothesis that falls in the middle between these two unlikely theories, and which offers a sensible interpretation of concrete evidence and facts, some of which are known to the public.

First, it must be said that the US is not unacquainted with the Muslim Brotherhood, since the movement has had US-based activities, organizations and financial investments for more than five decades, particularly through its relationship with and presence in Saudi Arabia, which became its refuge after it fled from Egypt during Nasser’s rule. The Muslim Brotherhood sought to establish its presence in the American continent, starting with “The Muslim Students’ Association,” which was a small organization established in 1963. Later, they went on to establish bigger organizations such as the North American Islamic Trust in 1971; the International Institute of Islamic Thought in 1980; the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood in America in 1980; the Islamic Society of North America in 1981; the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1981, which in turn established the Occupied Land Fund that later became the Holy Land Foundation; the American Islamic Council in 1990, and the American Islamic Society in1992. Furthermore, the international Muslim Brotherhood movement held its meetings several times in the US, specifically in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood had well known leaders in the US, such as Zaid Noman, Ahmed El Kady, Mohammed Ikram Elwani, as well as senior investors such as Youssef Nada.

Looking back, we can see that the starting point for the attempts to contain Islamist movements around the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood, was right after the events of September 11. As the first shot was fired in Afghanistan, the US began also to formulate a plan to deal with the Islamist dilemma from a political angle. An endless war was not a viable solution, and a political alternative was required in order to control the emerging phenomenon. The Bush Administration primarily thought that the lack of democratic political participation was behind the phenomenon of international terrorism, believing that these individuals were hunted in their countries, and after being forced to flee, they had directed their excessive hatred and violence at the Western World. The solution seemed clear enough then: to find a way to redirect and assimilate that excessive energy through a local political process that would both embrace and contain said individuals. Bush chose Iraq as a starting point for the democratization of the region and the creation of a new Middle East, where he had expected democracy to spread in a domino-like effect.

However, democracy failed in Iraq. On one side, it was thwarted by the unleashed sectarian strife monster, and on the other it met with stubborn and unanimous resistance from neighbouring countries, including Iran, which worked together to defeat Bush’s plan and stop the tide of American democracy from reaching its shores.

This plan’s failure was promptly followed by a hunt for a second alternative, and the idea to assimilate Islamists into their own countries through an Islamist rule of the region was born. In 2005, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, then the Secretary of State, made a speech in Cairo which suggested that the US did not mind if Islamists assumed power. This notion soon gained popularity, and dozens of seminars, conferences and meetings that took place in Washington, London, Madrid and Brussels started to promote in earnest the participation of Islamists in government. Many of these gatherings were funded through Qatar, with evident “green light” from the US. With the support of Qatari funds, Al-Jazeera Channel started to back the Islamist project, i.e., an Islamist rule via elections, until the Channel became the official media platform of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic movements in the region. The role played by both Qatar and Al-Jazeera expanded throughout the Arab Spring uprisings, seeking to speed up a “brotherhoodization” process that would reshape the entire region to reflect Muslim Brotherhood beliefs and practices. Later, they worked to engage the US in extensive dialogues about government requirements and structure, the conditions of Western cooperation, and particularly US-Muslim Brotherhood cooperation.

Since the collapse of Mubarak’s regime, Washington and Cairo had maintained contact as attested by frequent Washington-Cairo trips and intense phone consultations between the White House and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance office in Al-Mokattam. It had reached a point where the almost nonstop contact became the subject of a widespread political joke among foreign diplomats in Egypt, who said that you can measure the time that passes between President Mursi issuing a decision and reversing it by the time difference existing between the Office of Guidance and the White House–the joke clearly speaks for itself.

In the beginning, the US terms were as follows: 1) to take into consideration American interests in the region; 2) to stay away from Iran; 3) to maintain the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty; 4) to resort to the ballots in political issues; 5) to take into consideration the rights of women and minorities. The Muslim Brotherhood agreed to all conditions, even if it was merely a form of dissimulation.

The outcome of the Gaza crisis increased the trust between Obama’s Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood, with Obama praising Mursi at length after the crisis was averted. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood had offered what no other Egyptian president has ever offered to the US, pledging the following to Obama: 1) Hamas will not launch a single rocket, fire a single shot or conduct a single operation against Israel in the next four years, which represent Obama’s second term; 2) Egypt will monitor crossings and tunnels to ensure that no weapons are being smuggled to Hamas; 3) The US will be allowed to set up advanced equipment at the borders to conduct its own surveillance of the crossings; 4) In case the violence originating from Sinai gets out of control, American troops will be allowed to guard the Egyptian-Gaza borders. In a nutshell: To restrain Hamas and keep Israel from harm while the Muslim Brotherhood is let loose in Egypt to do as it wishes. Even worse, there are serious noises about Qatari/Egyptian/American discussions aiming to bypass the Palestinian Authority and open a dialogue with Hamas directly, followed by political talks which may lead to an individual peace treaty between Hamas and Israel.

Meanwhile, things are taking a different turn in Jordan with Prince Hassan’s statement about the West Bank being part of Jordan. Such statement may lead to future Palestinian migration to an alternative Jordanian homeland that would include the West bank, while the Gaza sector could end up back under Egyptian sovereignty, thus putting an end to the Palestinian cause. Some figures in Gaza who are known to cooperate with Iran have already rejected this Qatari project, led by Al-Zahar, Al-Jaabari and the Islamic Jihad movement. It has been suggested that Al-Jaabari has paid with his life for this conflict.

The bottom line is that while Mubarak had delivered the government into the hands of the military represented in the Military Council, the Military Council, in cooperation with the US, has handed the government over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak showed more intelligence in that regard, and had previous knowledge of the US intentions, as indicated by his statement to Dr. Hossam Badrawi that the US has been planning since 2005 for the Muslim Brotherhood to assume power in Egypt. The Military Council failed the people, perhaps because it made some sort of deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, or due to increased US pressure, or even because of poor political skills; what matters is that these factors combined have placed Egypt under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is up to Egyptians now to reshape history once more for the sake of the people, the homeland and the future, rather than the past. There is hope yet for their voice to be heard and for their will to prevail.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • antioli

    The Name of the Magic of Islamic influence on some American leaders is called Bakshish.

    • al_kidya

      A relatively small amount of money given for services rendered

  • Dan Nowotarski

    Wow, I enjoyed reading this very informative written article, Thanks.

    • al_kidya

      I got very little out of it. There is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood working in the Obama administration and their dear leader in the White House. Nothing of the financing of the Ikhwan, something USARetired brought up.
      Face it…Obama and his administration are pushing for sharia law in America. This was hatched long before G.W. Bush and probably during the second Clinton administration.

  • USARetired

    It appears O’Bozo is in bed with the brotherhood clear up to his foul weather pipe! His half brother is the finance officer for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and O’Bozo secretly spirited 8 billion dollars to them to advance the agenda of the Palestinians! Is this enough of a connection?

  • TopAssistant

    Both the House & Senate refuse to hold hearings on the Muslim
    Brotherhood in America and the plan they wrote to destroy us on their march to
    form a global caliphate.
    Here is their plan and you can buy it on Amazon for only $5.00: An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
    This is the Muslim Brotherhood’s creed: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is
    our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and dying in the way of
    Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”
    Another brilliant writing from the MB plan to destroy America as they march towards a global caliphate. “The process of settlement is a
    ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim
    Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand
    jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
    “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers
    so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other

    You can read an online copy here at The Oak Initiative website:

  • TopAssistant

    Who said this, to whom, when, why and what have we ever done about
    it? Would you consider this statement to be contrary to our Constitution, our
    way of life, a danger to our National/Homeland Security and the preservation of
    our Constitution? Would you think these are words of an enemy? Surely, both the House and Senate studied this but where are the reports?
    “The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of
    all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman [muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
    This statement was a part of a March 28, 1786, letter from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, the United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Continental Congress, concerning their conversation with the Tripoli ambassador as to why his pirates/terrorists hijacked our merchant ships, stole the ships and cargo while holding the sailors for ransom. (Thomas Jefferson. “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson”. Princeton Univ. Press. pp. 9:358.)
    Why are we failing to mention the obvious in the 1786 letter that still exists
    today? Here are the main points:
    a. “it was founded on the Laws of their prophet”;
    b. “that it was written in their Koran”;
    c. “that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners”;
    d. “that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and”;
    e. “to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and”;
    f. “that every musselman [muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
    Has our government studied this and if they have, where are the published reports?
    See actual letter here:
    This is the typed version:

    Please take the time to read an article by Gerard W. Gawalt, a manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress titled, “America and the Barbary Pirates : An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe. It can be found at:

    Go online to John Adams Koran: The Koran: commonly called the Alcoran of Mohomet (1806). Once on the link, look to the left and link to Read: then to To the Reader and see what he says about Islam.
    John Adams didn’t think much of the Koran.
    Let’s bring it up to date and ask this question: Is Pres. Obama using the Muslim
    Brotherhood to form a global caliphate or are they using him to form it? Either
    way, it is happening. Why then did he sign UN Resolution 16/18?
    To get a better understanding how he placed Shariah/Islamic law above our First Amendment go to YouTube and watch Stephen Coughlin: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

    • Dennis Wagner

      One of the few times I have seen Stephen Coughlin and his work mentioned, thank you. I have listened to Stephen at several seminars in recent years and even had the honor of sharing dinner with him and General Jerry Boykin after one. Fortunately others within the government are beginning to speak out on this, I just pray the warning will not be too late. The Paul Revere of our day.

  • Andy_Lewis

    Under Obama, thisclose.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    This piece drifted away from its titled theme: How Close is the U.S. to the MB?
    There is far more to be revealed and analyzed in that issue. The next administration in the U.S. must develop a clear understanding of this Trojan horse in America and how to burn it and get rid of the ashes for eternity.