Khaberni - Yasser Shtnawi
It cannot be considered a mere passing occurrence in the international political calendar that American talks about Trump’s executive order to classify some branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as "terrorist organizations" in Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Rather it’s a signal within a broader regional context where maps are being redrawn and definitions of allies and foes reformulated. However, the impact of this shift is not evenly distributed across the region, as some countries can maneuver, some align, and some—like Jordan—must manage the moment with complex calculations that do not allow for risk-taking.
For Jordan is not outside the storm but rather at its geographical and symbolic center. After the events of October 7th, everything changed—the equations of security, the language of diplomacy, the tools of mobilization, and even the way the world views Islamic political movements. The war on Gaza has not only left a humanitarian and geopolitical impact but has also brought an old question back to the table: "What are the boundaries of political legitimacy related to religious ideology? And who bears its costs?"
In this context, Jordan will not pay political prices on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its extensions, especially after the government's decision to officially ban the group's activities on April 23rd, closing their headquarters and confiscating their properties, based on a previous judicial decision in 2020 that legally dissolved the group because circumstances no longer permit, and because the price of a political gamble has become higher than any potential gain.
We have previously said that Jordan is a country that builds its stability on surplus awareness, not surplus resources, and that any slight signal in favor of an "internationally scrutinized group" could be read as an attempt to maintain a "gray zone".
Domestically, the scenery also does not allow for additional experimental margins, as the public mood is burdened with economic pressures, post-war tensions in Gaza, sensitivities regarding national identity, and maintaining a social contract—based on trust in state institutions, loyalty, and collective security—which takes precedence over any partisan or ideological accounts, thus allowing for any political shifts that might be construed as granting privileges to a group associated with "foreign regional narratives" would be regarded as a social risk before being a political one.
On the level of homeland security, Jordan always deals with politics not as intellectual disputation, but as "a protective layer for a stable identity and a cohesive society". This means that the state will not accept reducing its tools to "improvisational or short-term pragmatic decisions" because historical experience has taught it that preventing division is easier and less costly than addressing it after its occurrence.
The state's mind today faces a moment requiring clarity, not ambiguity. While political openness has always been a project, party participation is guaranteed, and pluralism is necessary, they must not transgress the boundaries of social peace and security, nor subtly handle intellectual or organizational equations "that are neither made within the geographical borders of the homeland nor managed according to its interests".
Jordanian politics has always been characterized by flexibility that was never submission, but rather a "calm policy awareness" that knows when to approach and when to distance itself. Hence, Jordan does not own—and should not own—the "luxury of paying political prices on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood at this time", as the state is not measured by its ability to keep up with the moment but by its capability to protect the future. The future of Jordan today requires firmness in direction, steadfastness in stance, and emphatic preservation of stability—not as a fleeting detail but as a national strategic necessity. Politics in Jordan has never been merely reactive, but an art of managing delicate balances that transcends external threats and internal pressures to something deeper which is titled "preserving a nation capable of sustaining and shaping its future despite all that is changing around it".
