A Threatening Brotherhood, Part I

by Sam Huntington

The west, it seems, has never found an effective way of dealing with Semitic peoples, other than utter ruthlessness and barbarity, which to date has only yielded us a temporary result. Part of this can be explained by the fact that most westerners do not understand who or what it is they are dealing with, which suggests that on occasion, our friend Damien Charles does have a point. If we seek to understand the Middle East, then we must evaluate Arab culture and Islam: they are predominant factors explaining why the Middle Eastern people are living in the far distant past.

Let’s begin with these facts: Most Arabs are Muslims.


Of these, tens of millions are moderate in both religion and politics. Among these millions, one will discover Eastern Berbers, Kurds, Turks, Iranians, and Druze. They share the stage with moderate Christians and Israelis pitted against more potential violence that one can possibly imagine. We are entering the age of revolutionary Islamism —thanks in part to the inept policies of Barack Hussein Obama, who did as much as anyone to prompt the so-called Arab Spring. Sunni Islamism is upon us —and it is a volatile strain of extremism, overshadowing Shia extremism, even with the fact that the Iranians possess a nuclear weapons capability.

Is this truly a revolution? In terms of new strategies and tactics to achieve Islamist short and long-term goals of transforming society through state power, yes … it is revolutionary. Some people will disagree with this assessment, of course; naysayers who seek to increase moderate complacency.

It is Islamism precisely because the movement involves organized political movements, using theology, while remaining decidedly non-theological. It is a form of patronage; moderates who decide to go along, ultimately always get along with revolutionary elements. The game continues, as the radical elements threaten and cajole moderate elements of society.

Who comprise these revolutionary groups? I think there are three elements: al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Salafists. They are equally dangerous elements of this revolutionary movement, but some of these are more dangerous in different and complex ways. Often, al-Qaeda calls themselves by other names. They are often regional. They focus mostly on tactics involving terror—and they do this because terror is a cash cow. Others are willing to give al-Qaeda cash and munitions simply because they provide useful diversions to other revolutionary activities.

Here is a recent example: an al-Qaeda group stormed an Egyptian army compound, killed soldiers, helped themselves to a few vehicles, and then attacked Egypt’s border with Israel. Naturally, the Egyptian army tracked these people down and killed them. They did shoot Egyptian soldiers, after all. There had to be an accounting.

The interesting part is what the Egyptian government told the people: it was an Israeli plot to murder Egyptian soldiers. We must therefore hate the Israelis and we must remember such outrages in the future.


This is Middle Eastern politics in a nutshell. It is how these people play their games, no matter how many innocents suffer. This is the template for the Muslim Brotherhood, the people whom Barack Obama lauded and backed against long-time ally Hosni Mubarak. By the way, the above example explains why the Muslim Brotherhood will never become a moderating force in Middle Eastern politics.

h/t Dr. Barry Rubin & Tammy Swofford