Turkey’s propaganda media front, TRT World, has spearheaded anti-India narratives, peddling full-blown pro-Pakistani propaganda

Pakistan PM Shahbaz Sharif is meeting Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan TWICE in ONE month, post the Pahalgam terror attack and after #OperationSindoor.

This not only reveals the true nature of their alliance but also EXPOSES their transnational alliance against India!

What we’re seeing today is a reflection of years of planning and collaboration. From 2018’s coordinated social media campaigns to 2022’s RToK in Sarajevo, every major anti-India narrative has been amplified simultaneously from Islamabad and Istanbul!

The Erdoğan network isn’t just diplomatic — it’s operational. Through a web of NGOs spanning continents, the Erdoğan family has built an influence ecosystem that abets everything — from Hamas to Pakistan-sponsored anti-India campaigns, including terror attacks.

Two weeks ahead of the Pahalgam terror attack, a sequence of events transpired between Pakistan and Turkey:

a. A think tank linked to Turkey’s Erdoğan family hosted a propaganda event on Kashmir.
b. TRT World interviewed a white-collared terrorist, Muzzammil Thakur, for propaganda on Kashmir.

On 9th April, Pakistani think tank CISSAJK released a report whitewashing the Pulwama terror attack and blaming India’s ruling party for “pushing South Asia to the nuclear brink.”

On 6th April, Muzzammil Thakur was also the “chief guest” at TUGVA — an organization closely linked to the Erdoğan family. Bilal Erdoğan (Erdoğan’s son) sits on the advisory board of TUGVA. TUGVA pursues the political ambitions of Erdoğan’s AK Party via its programs.

Note: TUGVA is also known for corruption allegations, promoting extremist Islamist ideology through jihadist camps, and working with Insani Haq-o-Hurriyat (IHH), which supports Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

On one hand, TUGVA hosted Muzzammil Thakur; on the other hand, he was interviewed by Turkey’s state-affiliated media and propaganda arm, TRT World. Muzzammil also shared the stage with Hamas supporter Azzam Tamimi at Ummatics Istanbul — a network founded by a Pakistani-American.

This is not the first time Turkey has abetted this anti-India figure. In 2016, TRT was the first portal to interview Muzzammil and project him as the face of resistance in Kashmir globally. It was the first time Muzzammil Thakur began receiving an international platform.

This is not a one-off or isolated instance where Turkey has abetted the Pakistani agenda globally. In fact, it has even worked hand-in-hand with Pakistan against certain countries, including India. To put things in perspective, both Turkey and Pakistan are strategic partners.

Turkey not only provides military support to Pakistan, but their alliance is marked by various aspects, including:
a. Defence deals
b. Info-war coordination
c. Military exercises
d. Technology deals

Turkey’s propaganda media front, TRT World, has spearheaded anti-India narratives, peddling full-blown pro-Pakistani propaganda — including Pakistani fake news and giving space to Pakistani faces — weaving the narrative of an alliance between India and Israel as colonial settlers.

According to a 2021 report, TRT World employed at least 50 Pakistanis out of 300-odd staff, collectively comprising correspondents, producers, and editors based in Istanbul. TRT World and Anadolu Agency are tasked with carrying propaganda favourable to the Turkey-Pakistan alliance.

Turkey under Erdoğan positions itself as a Muslim world leader, using Islamic identity to counter Western influence, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Pakistan has often aligned with Turkey’s narratives, including on Islamophobia, to resonate with global Muslim populations.

Targeting Muslim Brotherhood–targeted Countries:

Turkey and Pakistan jointly targeted countries that have also been targeted by the global radical Muslim Brotherhood — namely France, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and India.

In May 2020, #BoycottUAE trended in Pakistan after Turkish social media users promoted the hashtag. Turks were angered by the UAE’s support for Haftar’s forces in Libya (which opposed the Turkey-backed GNA) and the UAE’s ties with India.

In October 2020, Turkey and Pakistan united to push #BoycottFrenchProducts over France’s defence of free speech. Erdoğan urged Turks to shun French goods, while Pakistan’s parliament passed a resolution in 2020 backing Turkey’s call to boycott French products.

Similarly, this group also executed a slander campaign against Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). A number of pictures of the Saudi Prince with the Indian PM were recycled to suggest he was not standing up for the cause of Muslims.

As noted, Turkey supports Pakistan in several ways: endorsing its stance on Kashmir, pushing anti-India narratives like “Islamophobia,” and using diplomatic channels and state tools — including TRT World and social media — to fuel global boycott campaigns against India.

This alliance gained more visibility after the Indian government abrogated Article 370 in J&K. Turkey and Pakistan intensified coordinated disinformation campaigns on Kashmir, weaponizing tropes like ‘Islamophobia’ to malign India’s image and hinder India’s economic interests.

On August 5, 2019, after India revoked Articles 370 and 35A, while Pakistani media pushed aggressive propaganda, Turkish outlets like TRT World and Anadolu Agency were among the first international platforms to echo Pakistan’s Kashmir narrative against India.

TRT World published over 30 long stories related to Jammu and Kashmir, and interestingly, 14 of them were also recommended by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. A word cloud and timeline of TRT World’s coverage on Kashmir is shown below.

Turkey’s state-funded Anadolu Agency amplified fake news claiming India issued 3.4 million bogus domiciles in Kashmir to alter its demography post-Article 370. The false report was widely shared by Pakistani media — later proven fake.

The first BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) call against India appeared on Facebook on August 8, 2019 — just 3 days after the abrogation of Article 370. By August 13, 2019, the Palestinian BDS Committee had released a statement amplified via Pakistani- and Turkish-aligned platforms.

Pakistan-backed accounts launched a coordinated BDS campaign targeting India using #BoycottIndia and #BoycottIndianProducts, with over 162K tweets on X — mostly from fake or new Pakistan-based handles.

In September 2019, then-Pakistan PM Imran Khan used the UN General Assembly to accuse India of “Islamophobia” post-Article 370 abrogation. That same year, Pak sympathizer CJ Werleman pushed the Islamophobia trope against India, amplified by Turkish and Pakistani networks.

Weaponizing the OIC

Pakistan and Turkey also weaponized the OIC to amplify anti-India narratives in 2020 — citing CAA/NRC and Kashmir to push claims of ‘Islamophobia’. Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, TRT World, and Erdoğan backed the line.

OIC Statement & Fake Arab Handles Campaign

In April 2020, after OIC criticized India over Islamophobia, Pakistan launched a fake social media campaign. Pak accounts posing as Arab royals unleashed a disinformation campaign (later exposed) to target India with Islamophobia.

Soft Calls for BDS Against India

In collusion, Turkey and Pakistan organized several events equating Kashmir with Palestine and called for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against India. Seminars and events were organized jointly by this alliance.

In May 2020, an event was jointly hosted by Kashmir Civitas (based in Pakistan, Istanbul, Shanghai, and Qatar), along with Turkey-based Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), to draw a parallel between Kashmir and Palestine and seek BDS against India.

Similarly, on June 29–30, 2020, Istanbul University organized an event on Kashmir attended by Pakistani ministers and convicted ISI agent Ghulam Nabi Fai among others. Masood Khan urged Turkey’s intervention in the Kashmir issue while seeking BDS against India.

To lend legitimacy to the BDS campaign against India, pro-Pakistan networks enlisted CJ Werleman to write an article on TRT World (July 2020) framing the Kashmir issue within the global BDS movement and internationalizing anti-India narratives.

A few months later, to test the waters, in September 2021, the #BoycottIndianProducts campaign trended on X — this time spearheaded by the global Muslim Brotherhood along with the nexus of Qatar-Turkey-Pakistan (QTPi).

Two months later, in December 2021, the Turkey-Pakistan nexus — including Pakistan’s Jamaat and Erdoğan-linked entities — backed by the Muslim Brotherhood nexus linked to Hamas, organized a hush-hush ‘Russell Tribunal on Kashmir (RToK)’ against India.

Major takeaway of the 3-day Tribunal: BDS Movement against India!

RToK & Erdoğan Link

Among the organizers of the RToK tribunal was the International University of Sarajevo (IUS). The president of IUS is Professor Dr. Sevgi Kurtulmuş, professor of Economics at Ankara University. Dr. Sevgi is the wife of Numan Kurtulmuş, who was Deputy PM of Turkey (2014–17), from the AKP.

IUS was founded by the Foundation for Education Development Sarajevo (SEDEF) in 2003. SEDEF is a pro-government Turkish businessmen and Islamist foundation backed by Erdoğan.

SEDEF’s constituent organization is ILIM YAYMA VAKFI, founded by Erdoğan on March 31, 1973. Bilal Erdoğan is its president.

Prior to the RToK event, IUS had never engaged with Kashmir. Yet, this Erdoğan-linked university co-organized the RToK — after months of seminars and online boycott campaigns against India. Erdoğan’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkish state media’s role in the MB-led boycott are well known.

Another key organizer of the RToK was Kashmir Civitas (KC), established in 2019 with bases in Istanbul, London, Beijing, Rome, and Toronto. Farhan Mujahid Chak is the face of KC. He is of Pakistani origin, Qatar-resident, and currently based in Canada.

A few days after RToK, UK-based firm Stoke White — whose founder Hakan Camuz is a Turkish citizen and close to the Erdoğan family — ran a smear arrest campaign against the Indian Army and India’s Home Minister, accusing India of human rights violations in J&K.

Hakan Camuz headed the UK-based Turken Foundation (2015–19), which has deep links with the Erdoğan family.

The Turken Foundation was established by two Turkish organizations: Ensar Foundation (est. 1979) and TURGEV (est. 1996 by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). Bilal Erdoğan was once a board member of the Turken Foundation UK.

Ensar Foundation

In 2016, Ensar Foundation was involved in a child abuse scandal in Karaman, a central Anatolian town in Turkey, in a guest house run by Ensar Foundation. The foundation is known to be run by close associates of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan!

The Relationship Goes Deeper

In 2014, Camuz represented Bilal Erdoğan in a case against CNBC and David L. Philips after they exposed alleged links between Bilal and Turkey’s Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) in funding terror group ISIS. IHH is a known tool of Turkey’s intelligence agency Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT).

Camuz’s Stoke White has run legal and smear campaigns targeting countries — UAE, Saudi Arabia, India, and France — all targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey. Its cases also echo Ankara’s narrative, even demanding action against Erdoğan’s rival, Mohammed Dahlan.

On Jan 19, 2022, Stoke White launched a hit job against the Indian Home Minister and Army Chief (from Jan 2021), accusing India of genocide in Kashmir.

This was based on an “investigation” with Pakistan-based Legal Forum for Oppressed Voices of Kashmir (LFOVK). The campaign was strategically made to trend in Turkey.

LFOVK is headed by Pakistani Judge Justice Ali Nawaz Chawhan (late) and Advocate Nasir Qadri. It is pertinent to note that while SW launched a hit job against the Indian HM and then-Indian Army Chief, it was LFOVK that started the #arrestindianarmychief trend and peddled the narrative of ‘war crimes in Kashmir’ with SW.

LFK collaborates with think tanks like IPRI and IPS — both deeply tied to the Pakistan Army and ISI. Asad Durrani, ex-IPS member, was the general of Military Intelligence (MI) and ISI. These institutions were tasked by Pakistan’s Senate in 2016 to identify and exploit India’s “fault lines.”

Just two weeks ahead of the RToK in Sarajevo, LFOVK head Nasir Qadri and primary organizer Farhan Mujahid Chak (Kashmir Civitas) attended the 17th IPS Working Group on Kashmir in 2021 — joined by others including Irshad Mahmood, Tajammul Altaf, and APHC officials.

The New Narrative

As noted, there have been strong efforts to seek BDS against India, just like the BDS movement against Israel. Through boycott campaigns, hit job campaigns, and RToK, this alliance has been forging a narrative linking India and Israel.

Hence, this transnational alliance — driven by Turkey’s vision of becoming the poster boy of the Islamic world — uses Turkish propaganda fronts along with Pakistani allies to craft the India-Israel narrative. Turkey actively abets and drives these efforts alongside Pakistan through state machinery and media.

Most recently, TRT World gave a platform to Nasir Qadri, who accused India of adopting Israel’s settler-colonial tactics. During the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, a number of Pakistani handles also peddled the same narrative as Nasir Qadri on TRT World.

Turkey is fast emerging as a new hub for anti-India radical Islamists.

This investigative article draws exclusively from verified research conducted by DisInfoLab, a leading organization renowned for uncovering global disinformation campaigns, propaganda networks, and hybrid warfare strategies. Every event, connection, and claim outlined in this exposé is rooted in meticulously documented findings from DisInfoLab’s reports.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach.

Loay Al-Shareef, an Emirati peace activist and respected voice in the Arab reformist movement, recently issued a stark warning to American campuses and political leaders: the Muslim Brotherhood must be banned before its toxic ideology causes further harm.

His message is not one of political convenience or ideological vengeance. It is a cry rooted in personal experience, cultural insight, and a sincere concern for both the Arab world and the West.

Al-Shareef has visited more than 15 American universities, speaking alongside fellow Arab Muslim activists who once lived under the shadow of the very ideology they now confront. His mission is clear—to expose the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its military wing, Hamas, before more young minds are seduced by the movement’s deceptively noble slogans.

He is often asked: Why this relentless warning? His answer is powerful in its simplicity: “Because we know their evil better than anyone else on the planet.”

This isn’t abstract theory or secondhand knowledge. Many of these reformers were once indoctrinated with the Brotherhood’s ideas—raised on narratives of victimhood, infused with theological justifications for hatred, and programmed to see the world through a rigid binary of believers versus enemies. But some, like Al-Shareef, broke free. And in that awakening, they saw not just the lie—they saw the machinery behind it.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach. But in moments of global attention—especially during crises in Gaza or Jerusalem—it wears the mask of “resistance” and “liberation.” That’s when slogans like “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” are weaponized. To the uninformed, they echo human rights and justice. To those who know the ideology’s roots, they are coded calls for extermination and destruction.

Al-Shareef’s perspective forces an uncomfortable but necessary re-examination. The West, particularly liberal institutions in the U.S., often romanticize political Islamists as representatives of “authentic” Muslim identity. Yet the reality is far more complex—and dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has long perfected the art of double-speak: peace in English, militancy in Arabic; democracy in the West, theocracy at home.

The tragedy is that many Western politicians and diplomats continue to give these preachers a pass. Whether out of ignorance, fear of being labeled “Islamophobic,” or naïve idealism, this tolerance is enabling the very ideologies that fuel radicalization, antisemitism, and violence.

Al-Shareef is not anti-Palestinian. He, like many in the Arab world, supports justice and dignity for Palestinians. But he draws a line between a genuine pursuit of peace and the manipulation of that cause by Islamist actors who have hijacked it for their own ideological war.

His call to ban the Muslim Brotherhood in America is not just about foreign policy. It’s about safeguarding the social fabric of democratic societies. It’s about recognizing antisemitism—not as a political position, but as a crime with deadly consequences. And it’s about listening to those who have walked through the fire and come out with scars and clarity.

The next time a “Free Palestine” protest escalates into violence, as many unfortunately have in recent months, remember this warning: the danger isn’t just spontaneous—it’s ideological, well-organized, and globally connected.

Loay Al-Shareef’s message to America is not anti-Muslim. It’s anti-extremist. It’s a call for nuance, courage, and truth in a time when too many prefer slogans to substance.

The West must listen to those who know the mask behind the movement. Before it’s too late.

Taha’s remarks come in the wake of deadly terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, where civilians, including children, were killed by militants reportedly backed by Pakistani extremist networks. India responded swiftly, targeting the militant infrastructure across the Line of Control, a move supported by many across the region as both proportionate and necessary.

“This isn’t aggression — it’s justice,” Taha continued, pointing out the hypocrisy of critics who remained silent during the initial bloodshed but have now taken issue with India’s right to defend itself.

Among the more troubling developments, however, is Pakistan’s reported targeting of civilian areas in cross-border shelling, which has resulted in casualties and displacement. Human rights groups have voiced concern over this escalation, calling it a violation of international norms.

What has further inflamed opinion, particularly in the UK and parts of Europe, is the reaction from certain Western lawmakers. “Why are some British MPs acting like they’re part of Pakistan’s PR team instead of serving their own country?” Taha asked pointedly, reflecting a sentiment shared by many Indian and international observers alike.

In a time when terrorism is increasingly transnational, the notion that democracies must remain passive in the face of violence is not only outdated but dangerous. Drawing a comparison to the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel, Taha noted the eerie similarities: “Just like Israel, ambushed in its sleep by genocidal terrorists, India woke up to dead babies in Kashmir — murdered by extremists. And suddenly, the same voices that were silent during the massacre are now loud against the response.”

The political scientist didn’t mince words about the surge of Muslim Brotherhood-linked rhetoric in European media, where self-styled “experts” have emerged to criticize India while glossing over the root cause — terrorism.

“The truth is simple: don’t cry about the response when you applauded the attack. You started it, you don’t get to choose how it ends,” Taha asserted. He concluded his post with a deeply resonant quote: “When dharma is attacked, the warrior rises. And when the warrior rises, the war ends one way: victory.”

As the world grapples with the balance between justice and diplomacy, the Indian case forces a stark reconsideration: when a nation is attacked, is it not duty-bound to defend its citizens — swiftly, decisively, and without apology?

For many, Taha’s words have become more than a commentary — they are a call for moral clarity in a world too often clouded by selective outrage.

According to the intelligence report, TRT World has been providing repeated space to controversial figures linked to Pakistan’s Kashmir campaign, most notably Nasir Qadri—an Islamabad-based lawyer who heads the Legal Forum for Kashmir (LFK). Qadri, who once travelled extensively within India, is now operating from Pakistan’s capital, spearheading global campaigns to malign India’s military and government under the guise of human rights advocacy.

Observers say Qadri’s rise in the propaganda machinery is part of a broader, coordinated effort involving Turkey, Pakistan, and organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. These connections came into sharper focus during the Russell Tribunal on Kashmir held in 2022—a politically charged event co-organized by actors from all three camps.

In a significant flashpoint noted by the report, Legal Forum for Kashmir, in collaboration with UK-based law firm Stoke White, ran a highly orchestrated Twitter campaign in January 2022 targeting key Indian leaders. The online offensive singled out Union Home Minister Amit Shah and then-Chief of Army Staff, General Manoj Naravane. Hashtags and posts flooded social media, attempting to paint India’s security operations in Jammu and Kashmir in a negative light.

This digital campaign conveniently coincided with the Russell Tribunal, raising questions about its timing and coordination. While the event branded itself as an independent tribunal on Kashmir, critics argue it was little more than a political showpiece aimed at India, leveraging platforms and personalities closely aligned with Ankara and Islamabad.

Analysts suggest TRT World’s coverage fits into Ankara’s broader geopolitical ambitions. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has, in recent years, amplified his rhetoric on Muslim causes, often positioning himself as a global defender of Muslim rights. In that narrative, Kashmir finds repeated mention—frequently aligned with Pakistan’s stance.

Qadri’s Legal Forum for Kashmir, though presented as a legal advocacy group, has drawn scrutiny for functioning as a front for anti-India narratives. Its frequent engagement with Turkish media outlets and joint events with organizations sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood only deepen suspicions about its true objectives.

What makes the situation more concerning, according to @OSINTWa_com, is the blurring of lines between journalism and state-driven messaging. When a state-funded broadcaster like TRT World gives repeated coverage to one-sided narratives without space for opposing views, it raises red flags about media neutrality and intent.

Experts urge caution and call for international media watchdogs to investigate the growing weaponization of public broadcasters in geopolitically sensitive regions. “This is not journalism—it’s soft warfare,” one analyst noted.

As India and Pakistan navigate yet another phase of tense relations, observers argue that platforms like TRT World must be held accountable for enabling biased discourse that could inflame public sentiment and undermine regional stability.

Islamist terrorism did not rise in a vacuum. It was engineered, cultivated, and weaponized—first by colonial powers, then by Cold War strategists, and now by regional regimes.

In the aftermath of European colonialism, the world has seen many upheavals—but few have been as globally disruptive and persistently violent as the rise of Islamist terrorism. It is one of the darkest legacies of the colonial era, ironically shaped and sharpened by the very empires it now claims to oppose. Today, it stands as a transnational threat, claiming lives from Karachi to Kuala Lumpur, and from Tel Aviv to London.

The data tells a haunting story. Since 1979—the year of the Shia Islamic Revolution in Iran—there have been more than 49,000 Islamist terror attacks worldwide, resulting in over 220,000 deaths. But what is often overlooked is the fact that 89.5% of these attacks occurred in Muslim-majority countries, with the vast majority of victims being Muslims themselves. Even the holiest of sites, such as Mecca, have not been spared. The carnage is indiscriminate, and the ideology behind it is far more complex than simplistic narratives often suggest.

Islamist groups would have the world believe that their violence is a response to foreign occupation or injustice. Yet the overwhelming facts betray that narrative. Most Islamist terrorism does not take place in occupied territories but in nations where Muslims are the majority. This disproportionality demands a deeper, more historically rooted investigation into how this ideology emerged and why it continues to thrive.

The Colonial Incubator of Political Islam

To understand the modern-day menace of Islamist terrorism, we must go back to the time of European imperialism—particularly British colonial rule. Colonizers, determined to suppress nationalist uprisings and maintain control over their dominions, employed a classic divide-and-rule strategy. In this context, religious identity became a tool of political manipulation.

Extremist elements were co-opted and even fostered by colonial administrators to counter secular, anti-colonial movements. It is no coincidence that key Islamist movements—such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in India—were born during this time. These Islamist movements did not rise organically from within their societies as spiritual or theological reforms; rather, they were often sponsored or tolerated by colonial regimes as buffers against resistance.

Figures like Sir Syed Ahmed, who promoted the divisive “two-nation theory” in British India, and Sir Agha Khan, who founded the Muslim League, played pivotal roles in politicizing Islam. Their ideas—encouraged, amplified, or at least facilitated by the British—ultimately contributed to the partition of India and laid the groundwork for modern political Islam. This ideological framework would later become fertile ground for the rise of violent jihadist movements.

From West Africa to Southeast Asia, similar patterns emerged: colonial authorities empowering Islamist elements for short-term control, only to leave behind long-term instability.

Cold War Complicity and the Rise of Armed Jihad

The Cold War did not reverse this legacy—it accelerated it. In Afghanistan, for example, the United States and its allies, including Pakistan, armed and trained Islamist fighters to push back against Soviet expansion. The result was the creation of well-equipped and ideologically radicalized groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

What was once political Islam turned into militant jihadism. The West had, once again, fed the very forces it would later call its enemies.

The Twin Threats: State-Sponsored and Non-State Jihadism

In the modern context, Islamist terrorism operates under two primary umbrellas: non-state actors and state-sponsored networks.

Non-state actors are dispersed, often embedded within societies, waiting for ideological or operational cues. Their roots trace back to political Islamist thought developed during colonialism, shaped further by theological radicalism and geopolitical grievances. Their dream of a global caliphate transcends borders, and they are often motivated not by poverty or lack of opportunity—but by ideology. No amount of economic aid or deradicalization programs alone can address this; it requires ideological confrontation led by credible scholars and religious authorities.

On the other hand, state-sponsored Islamist terrorism is far more organized—and dangerous. Here, nation-states actively fund, shelter, or enable terrorist proxies to project power or destabilize rivals. Iran, since the 1979 revolution, stands out as the most prolific actor. From supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza, and from Houthi insurgents in Yemen to Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Iran’s fingerprints are evident across some of the most devastating conflicts in the Middle East.

Turkey and Qatar, despite being close Western allies, also play significant roles. Both states have financially supported Islamist groups—including the Muslim Brotherhood and others—across North Africa and the Levant. Media outlets like TRT (Turkey) and Al Jazeera (Qatar) have become soft-power instruments, often amplifying Islamist narratives under the guise of journalistic independence.

Then there is Pakistan—arguably the most paradoxical player. Created as a result of colonial partition, Pakistan has, since its inception, used Islamist militancy as statecraft. Its long-standing doctrine of “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” has led to decades of cross-border terrorism. From Kashmir to Punjab, from Naxalite regions to the Northeast, India has faced relentless proxy warfare orchestrated from across the border.

Unlike Iran, Pakistan has largely escaped Western censure or sanctions, remaining a “major non-NATO ally” and benefiting from strategic utility. Whether during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets or the post-9/11 conflict, Pakistan’s duplicity has been tolerated, if not rewarded.

A recent example was the attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, where 26 innocent civilians were killed by Pakistan-sponsored Islamist militants. It is part of a consistent pattern—not an anomaly.

Solutions Begin with Truth and Courage

Combating Islamist terrorism requires more than drones, security checkpoints, or surveillance. It demands truth—about its origins, its enablers, and its geopolitical underpinnings.

The first step must involve addressing state actors that perpetuate terrorism under ideological or strategic pretexts. In this context, resolving the “Pakistan-Iran-Turkey” triad is essential. And one of the most viable ways to do this is by supporting the self-determination of oppressed peoples within those states.

The liberation of Balochistan (currently divided between Pakistan and Iran) and Kurdistan (spanning parts of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria) is not just a moral imperative—it could be a strategic game-changer. Empowering these freedom movements would strike at the very heart of the Islamist-terror ecosystem and weaken the foundations upon which these regimes rely.

Time for a Reckoning—and a Response

India, Israel, and democratic states across the world must come together, not just to condemn terrorism, but to confront its root causes and supporters. The West, too, has an opportunity—a responsibility—to correct the historical wrongs of colonialism. This means no longer appeasing authoritarian allies who feed Islamist extremism for their own ends.

Islamist terrorism did not rise in a vacuum. It was engineered, cultivated, and weaponized—first by colonial powers, then by Cold War strategists, and now by regional regimes. To dismantle it, we must stop treating the symptoms and start confronting the disease.

And that means standing with those who fight for freedom—not those who hide behind religion to suppress it.

Taha, a vocal critic of the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, said the world is repeating the same mistakes that allowed Osama bin Laden to rise unchecked—this time, in places like Sudan and Gaza.

“The Houthis are now training members of Hamas and jihadists in Sudan to use drones,” Taha revealed. “They have access to Iranian drone technology, and it’s only a matter of time before they choose to strike—maybe tomorrow, maybe years from now. But it’s dangerous if we don’t deal with it.”

His comments come amid heightened concerns over drone warfare being deployed by non-state actors across the Middle East and Africa, as Iran continues to export advanced weaponry and ideological influence through its proxy networks.

A Growing Danger in Sudan

Taha expressed particular concern over Sudan, where, according to his claims, militant groups are preparing for larger-scale attacks using drone capabilities gained through Houthi and Iranian training programs.

“We are just waiting for another Bin Laden to grow in Sudan—to carry out another 9/11,” he warned. “And that’s exactly what’s happening. The world is waiting again.”

The political scientist criticized the international community, particularly Western nations, for ignoring early warnings and failing to act decisively against groups operating under religious or humanitarian cover.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the West

Taha also highlighted the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them the “ideological engine” behind many extremist movements. He applauded the UAE and other Gulf nations for formally banning the group and classifying it as a terrorist organization.

“Countries like mine, the UAE, have banned the Muslim Brotherhood and spoken clearly to the West about the dangers they pose,” he said. “But unfortunately, many of these extremists now operate freely in the West—masquerading as activists, lawyers, or human rights defenders.”

In a controversial segment, Taha referred to specific cases in the United Kingdom, where individuals with extremist ties allegedly defended criminals, including those involved in sexual abuse cases, under the guise of political or religious victimhood.

“When people speak out against these crimes, they’re called Islamophobic,” he said. “That is not Islam. Rape, terrorism, and criminal acts do not represent Islam or any religion.”

He stressed the need for freedom of speech to be protected when addressing such issues, warning against censorship disguised as tolerance.

“British citizens have every right to criticize these radicals. That is not Islamophobia; that is truth. But they [extremists] use the label to silence dissent.”

A Call to Action

Taha’s remarks also took aim at figures like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other leaders whom he accused of using religion as a political weapon, while maintaining ties with Brotherhood-affiliated networks.

He drew parallels between the situations in Gaza, Sudan, Turkey, and even India, warning that the ideological infrastructure underpinning jihadist movements is transnational, and that failure to counter it now could have catastrophic consequences later.

“Whether it’s my brother in the UAE or a citizen in India, we face the same threat. Letting this ideology grow unchecked puts all of us at risk.

Nonetheless, his message is clear: ignore the warning signs now, and pay a much higher price later.

Many supporters may retreat underground, potentially leading to the radicalization of splinter factions if their political aspirations are completely suppressed.

Jordan’s political landscape witnessed a seismic shift this week as the government formally banned all activities of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood, a move experts describe as a turning point in the kingdom’s modern history.

Interior Minister Mazen Al-Faraya announced the decision on Wednesday, shortly after the shocking revelation of a foiled plot involving the manufacture of rockets by individuals allegedly linked to the Brotherhood. The disclosure, which sent tremors through Jordan’s security establishment, has fundamentally reframed the national conversation around the role of political Islam within the state.

Arab News senior journalist Hani Hazaimeh captured the gravity of the moment, stating, “Jordan’s decision to formally ban all activities of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood marks a watershed moment in the kingdom’s modern political history — a decision that could reverberate well beyond its borders.”

Brotherhood’s Complicated Legacy

Since Jordan’s establishment in 1946, the Muslim Brotherhood has been a paradoxical player in the country’s political life — both an ally and a source of friction for the Hashemite monarchy. Unlike in many neighboring countries where the Brotherhood was outlawed, Jordan allowed the group to operate relatively freely, believing it could serve as a moderating influence against leftist ideologies like communism and Arab nationalism.

Over decades, the Brotherhood grew deep roots in Jordanian society. They ran charitable organizations, contested parliamentary elections, and provided social services where the state often fell short. Their advocacy for Palestinian rights, particularly during crises like the ongoing Gaza war, further bolstered their popularity, especially among middle and lower-class Jordanians disillusioned by economic hardship and political stagnation.

However, as Hani Hazaimeh pointed out, the relationship between the Brotherhood and the state was always a delicate balancing act.

“What once served as a pressure valve for societal grievances has, in the eyes of the state, transformed into a potential vector for subversion,” he explained.

The discovery of a clandestine rocket manufacturing operation — allegedly orchestrated by the son of a senior Brotherhood figure — shattered the Brotherhood’s carefully cultivated image of peaceful activism. Despite the group’s leadership quickly disavowing any involvement and reaffirming their commitment to nonviolence, the damage to their credibility was severe and immediate.

A Sweeping Crackdown

The government’s response was swift and uncompromising. Authorities moved to shutter Brotherhood-affiliated offices, freeze financial assets, and prosecute individuals associated with the now-outlawed group. It was made clear that political entities perceived to harbor or inspire threats to national cohesion would no longer be tolerated.

Domestically, this crackdown has reignited a fierce debate. Supporters argue that national stability must come first, especially in a region plagued by insurgencies and ideological extremism. Critics, however, caution against conflating legitimate political dissent with criminal subversion.

For many Jordanians, particularly those who once saw the Brotherhood as a voice for the marginalized, the move is bittersweet. The Brotherhood’s female-led platforms, community initiatives, and calls for social justice once filled a void left by the country’s traditional political parties. Yet the exposure of violent plots irreversibly damaged the group’s moral standing, leaving many questioning whether it can ever reclaim its former legitimacy.

A Broader Geopolitical Signal

Beyond Jordan’s borders, the decision carries significant geopolitical implications. It signals a clear alignment with regional powers such as Egypt and the UAE, both of which have taken hardline stances against Islamist movements.

“Regionally, Jordan’s decision represents more than a domestic policy shift — it is a calculated geopolitical signal,” Hazaimeh emphasized.

At a time when the Middle East is gripped by instability — with the Gaza conflict escalating tensions and Iran-backed militias gaining ground in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon — Jordan’s leadership is acutely aware of the risks of internal radicalization. The foiled rocket plot was not merely a domestic incident; it was seen as a direct challenge to the state’s monopoly on force and a potential harbinger of wider unrest.

Challenges Ahead

The path forward for Jordan is fraught with uncertainty. Simply outlawing the Brotherhood will not erase its ideological influence overnight. Many supporters may retreat underground, potentially leading to the radicalization of splinter factions if their political aspirations are completely suppressed.

The Jordanian government thus faces a delicate balancing act. It must safeguard national security while still allowing space for legitimate political expression. If all avenues for peaceful dissent are closed off, the risk of pushing frustrated citizens toward extremism only grows.

At the same time, this moment offers a rare opportunity. With the Brotherhood sidelined, there is room for new, reform-minded political movements to emerge — ones that advocate transparency, inclusivity, and genuine democratic engagement.

However, as Hazaimeh rightly cautions, true progress requires more than just removing one set of political actors and installing another.

“The end of the Brotherhood’s formal political role could open space for new, reform-minded movements that advocate transparency, inclusivity and constructive engagement. But such developments will only materialize if the state demonstrates a genuine commitment to democratic renewal, economic equity and responsive governance.”

Without addressing the deep-seated socioeconomic grievances that allowed the Brotherhood to flourish in the first place, Jordan risks repeating the cycle of political repression and radicalization.

A Defining Moment

In essence, Jordan’s decision to ban the Muslim Brotherhood is about more than just one organization. It reflects a broader recalibration of the kingdom’s political identity in an increasingly polarized region. It’s a bold statement about the kind of future Jordan wants — one rooted in stability, security, and closer alignment with regional powers that prioritize order over ideological diversity.

Yet, the ultimate success of this approach will depend on what comes next. Will Jordan open up new pathways for citizen engagement and reform, or will it double down on security-first governance at the expense of political freedoms?

As Hani Hazaimeh poignantly summed up, “Whether this move ushers in a new era of stability or sows the seeds of future discord will depend largely on what the government does next — not just in terms of repression or security, but in its ability to offer a compelling, inclusive vision for the nation’s future.”

Only time will tell whether this bold decision will mark the beginning of a new, more stable era for Jordan — or merely a temporary lull in the kingdom’s ongoing political evolution.

The move comes amid accusations that members of the Brotherhood were planning attacks, with authorities citing national security concerns. Police forces surrounded and searched the headquarters of the Islamic Action Front, the political party affiliated with the Brotherhood, shortly after the announcement.

The Islamic Action Front had secured the largest number of seats in last year’s parliamentary elections, held in the shadow of mass protests across Jordan in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood was officially banned a decade ago, a splinter faction was licensed, and the Islamic Action Front had continued operating with restrictions. It remains unclear how extensively the new ban will be implemented against the party and its affiliates.

In a statement, the Interior Ministry confirmed the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as an illegal organization and announced a ban on all political activity connected to the group. Offices linked to the Brotherhood will be closed, and asset confiscation efforts will be intensified.

“It has been proven that members of the group operate in the dark and engage in activities that could destabilize the country,” the ministry stated. “Members of the dissolved Muslim Brotherhood have tampered with security and national unity, and disrupted security and public order.”

The ministry also alleged that the son of a Brotherhood leader was involved in attempts to manufacture and test explosives aimed at targeting security forces. No specific names or further details were disclosed.

Just last week, Jordanian authorities reported the arrest of 16 individuals accused of manufacturing short-range missiles, possessing explosives and automatic weapons, concealing a missile ready for use, and conducting illegal recruitment and training. The suspects were described as being part of “unlicensed groups,” a term widely interpreted to refer to the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has denied the allegations and reaffirmed its commitment to Jordan’s security.

“This marks a pivotal moment for Jordan,” said political analyst Amer Sabaileh. “The relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood has fundamentally changed and will not return to its previous state.”

Jordan, a key Western ally often regarded as an island of stability in the Middle East, shares borders with Israel, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The kingdom hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees from regional conflicts and has long played a strategic role in the region’s geopolitics.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded nearly 100 years ago in Egypt, has grown into a global network with branches across the Middle East. While its leaders insist they pursue Islamic governance through peaceful, democratic means, governments across the region — especially those with authoritarian leanings — have labeled the group a threat to national security.

The Brotherhood’s double game — peaceful reformist by day, radical ideologue by night — is not new, but it’s growing bolder.

By all measures, the recent arrest of 16 individuals linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan marks a seismic shift in how the group operates — and how seriously it must be treated. The foiled plot wasn’t a back-alley operation by a fringe group.

According to Dalia Al-Aqidi, executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism, it was a coordinated network with training and funding allegedly sourced from Lebanon. The arrests unearthed a drone manufacturing site and even a rocket ready for launch — right inside the Kingdom.

This wasn’t just a domestic security scare. It’s a flashing red light to the international community: the Muslim Brotherhood is neither dormant nor defeated. It is evolving.

For Jordan, a country that has maintained a delicate balance of internal stability despite a turbulent neighborhood, this plot comes with chilling implications. Even more so because it arrives just months after the Brotherhood’s political arm, the Islamic Action Front, gained traction in the 2024 parliamentary elections. That coincidence is not lost on observers.

Al-Aqidi is blunt in her assessment: the same organization that runs for office with talk of reform is preparing to launch attacks behind the scenes.

The Brotherhood’s double game — peaceful reformist by day, radical ideologue by night — is not new, but it’s growing bolder. It has long perfected the art of political shapeshifting: invoking religion to gain street-level credibility in the Middle East, while adopting the language of democracy and civil rights in the West.

But as Al-Aqidi argues, this is not benign activism. The Brotherhood’s true objective remains unchanged since its founding: a society governed by Islamist Shariah law. The only difference is that, increasingly, it chooses ballots and influence operations over bombs — until, of course, it doesn’t. Violence remains on the table, as Jordan’s recent near-miss shows.

In the U.S., Canada, and Europe, Brotherhood-linked organizations have taken root in civil society — as charities, student groups, lobbying arms and community voices.

According to Al-Aqidi, these groups silence moderate Muslim voices and weaponize terms like “Islamophobia” to deflect scrutiny. It’s not just rhetoric, she insists — it’s a strategy, one that undermines the foundations of liberal democracy from within.

Even more alarming is what she describes as a “convenience coalition” forming between radical Islamists and far-left activists. Their ideologies may differ wildly, but their shared animosity toward the West — particularly America and Israel — provides a common enemy and fertile ground for coordinated disruption.

Yet, despite mounting evidence and repeated warnings from Middle Eastern allies, the West — particularly the United States — has hesitated to act. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Washington has not.

Al-Aqidi argues this is due to “willful ignorance and political convenience” — a misplaced hope that the Brotherhood is a “moderate” firewall against more extreme terror groups.

But history says otherwise. The ideological DNA of terror groups like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Daesh can be traced directly back to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not a firewall — it is the foundation.

The time for diplomatic hedging is over, Al-Aqidi urges. She calls on the U.S. government to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization and to investigate the network of nonprofits and advocacy groups that operate as its front. The aim, she says, is not to stifle religion but to confront a radical ideology masquerading as reform.

Jordan’s discovery was not just a domestic police action — it was a siren call for the global community. The Muslim Brotherhood remains highly organized, deeply ideological, and dangerously underestimated.

The West cannot afford to keep its eyes shut. Inaction isn’t just apathy — it’s surrender.

A wave of disinformation spearheaded by accounts linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) is spreading across social media, falsely claiming that Saudi Arabia has allowed Israel to use its Hamida airbase to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen.

This claim, however, stands in direct contradiction to both the Kingdom’s defense policies and regional geopolitical realities. It’s a desperate attempt to stir regional tensions and provoke public outrage.

Let’s be clear: this claim is not only baseless but reeks of the Brotherhood’s long-standing obsession with vilifying Saudi Arabia under the guise of “defending the Ummah.”

For those with even a faint idea of how geopolitics works in the Gulf, the idea that Riyadh would give its strategic military infrastructure to another country — let alone Israel — to attack a third-party nation is laughable.

Having spent more than a decade in Saudi Arabia, interacting with people from all walks of life—including Houthi Yemenis, legal experts, and policy advisors—I can testify firsthand that the Kingdom’s military and legal doctrine is centered on defense, not aggression. Saudi Arabia does not, and has not, opened its airspace, land, or naval bases to any foreign power to target a third country.

However, during the 1990s, Saudi Arabia sought America’s support to defend its own borders—not to intervene in someone else’s conflict.

During the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it was Turkey under Tayip Erdogan as Prime Minister that offered its Incirlik Airbase, and Qatar that opened up the Al Udeid Airbase to American forces.

While Ikhwani voices slander Saudi Arabia, they conveniently ignore the documented military cooperation between Pakistan and the United States. During the War on Terror, Pakistan openly provided U.S. forces with military bases, including the Shamsi Airbase, from where drone strikes were launched into Afghanistan and tribal areas, resulting in both militant and civilian casualties.

According to a 2011 report by the New York Times, Pakistan received billions in military aid while facilitating these operations, which included over 400 drone strikes between 2004 and 2011 alone.

But the Brotherhood and their digital foot soldiers stay silent on those truths—because facts aren’t convenient when you’re in the business of political manipulation.

This latest rumor is part of a tired Ikhwani playbook: insert “Israel” into any fabricated headline, link it to Saudi Arabia, and watch the outrage machine spin. But times have changed. The region isn’t buying it anymore.

Israel, meanwhile, has shown remarkable technological resilience in the face of escalating regional threats—whether it’s intercepting a record 300+ drones and missiles during a recent multi-front assault, or sharing its defense innovations with allies who genuinely seek peace and progress.

While Saudi Arabia maintains no formal diplomatic relations with Israel, the Kingdom has always taken a principled stance—favoring stability, peace, and regional cooperation without compromising on the Palestinian cause. Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a hub for technological innovation, counter-terrorism expertise, and disaster response—all areas in which Gulf nations can learn and cooperate, if and when official channels are established.

Kingdom’s stance has always been principled and transparent—focused on stability, not sensationalism.

And speaking of peace, Saudi Arabia and Iran’s normalization just two days ago saw the signing of multiple bilateral agreements—a move that has notably reduced Houthi attacks on Saudi territory. This diplomatic breakthrough alone dismantles the very premise of the Brotherhood’s conspiracy: if missiles have stopped, what exactly would Israel be striking from Saudi soil?

It’s time to call this what it is: Muslim Brotherhood psychological warfare, meant to fracture unity, incite the uninformed, and derail progress under the pretext of pan-Islamism—a worn-out mask for power politics.

Let’s not be fooled.