The U.S. move to label branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan as terrorist organizations represents a major shift in Washington’s stance toward political Islamist movements, which it had previously considered “non-violent.”

The move received official backing from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, as the U.S. designations announced on Tuesday effectively confirmed the assessments of these three countries, which had labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization nearly 11 years ago.

Mustafa Kamal, a researcher specializing in regional security, told Annahar that “the U.S. and Western shift regarding the Brotherhood goes beyond mere reclassification. It reflects a gradual change in approach - from one that analyzed the movement’s political, social, and religious aspects while relying on legal oversight and containment, to one that now views parts of the network as an enabling structure capable of exerting direct or indirect violent influence through funding and cross-border ties.”

Varied assessments

Despite widespread attention, analysts remain divided over the implications of the move. Some argue it could significantly affect the Brotherhood, which operates in over 50 countries, while others see its impact as limited, serving primarily U.S. and Israeli interests.

The debate continues even after the U.S. State Department emphasized that the designation of the three branches is only a first step. Its statement highlighted that the classifications support President Trump’s commitment to dismantling the capabilities and operations of Brotherhood branches that threaten the United States.

The statement concluded by stressing that these measures mark the beginning of a sustained effort to curb the violence and destabilizing activities of the Brotherhood wherever they occur.

Limited impact

Maher Farghaly, a researcher on political Islamist movements, considers the decision’s impact “limited” because it targets only a handful of branches. In a statement to Annahar, he questioned: “Where are the branches in Yemen and Syria, among others? And what about the Brotherhood-affiliated organizations inside the United States?”

Farghaly argues that “the decision targets only Israel’s neighboring countries and will not have a major impact on the group.” He also noted that “the effect of the classifications will be limited to certain financial institutions, specific individuals, and anyone displaying the Brotherhood’s insignia in Egypt or elsewhere.”

American interests

Amr Abdel Hafiz, a researcher on Islamic movements, believes that “the United States prioritizes its own interests above all else, never fully siding with or against any party. It has consistently treated political Islamic organizations as actors to engage with - cooperating at times and opposing at others - depending entirely on American strategic interests.”

Abdel Hafiz told Annahar that “Trump’s stance on the Brotherhood is driven solely by U.S. interests, as shown by his simultaneous willingness to engage with the new Syrian regime aligned with political Islam, lifting prior sanctions, and removing its former terrorist designation.”

The researcher believes that the current designations “reinforce the vision of the Arab nation-states, which had already labeled the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization before Washington did. This move could significantly constrain the group’s operations in the U.S. and allied countries - provided Washington maintains the designation consistently, without changing it according to shifting interests.”

Classification variability

Kamal highlights a key issue: the classifications of the Brotherhood branches differ across the three countries, each carrying distinct political, legal, and economic consequences. He explains: “In Lebanon’s case, the U.S. State Department placed the Brotherhood on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list while also including it on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) list under the U.S. Treasury Department, reflecting a division of roles between the two agencies.” The researcher adds that “the State Department applies the more politically and legally stringent FTO designation, whereas the Treasury focuses on targeting resources and transactions through sanctions.”

Regarding the inclusion of the Egypt and Jordan branches on the SDGT lists, he explains: “The primary aim appears to be targeting funding - restricting economic activity, operational fronts, and rapid transfer networks - with broad compliance effects across the financial system. This aligns with the logic of Executive Order 13224, which is primarily designed to disrupt financial support networks for terrorism.”

He concludes: “In this context, the U.S. statements regarding the Egyptian branch focused more on material support for Hamas than on framing it as a case of violence within Egypt. This suggests that the publicly presented American perspective aimed primarily at preventing suspected financial flows to Hamas, rather than building a detailed legal case around acts of direct violence attributed to the group inside Egypt.”

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.