One reason for Israel to worry about Turkey is that President Erdoğan’s party, the AKP, is his country’s arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, much as Hamas is the Palestinian counterpart. The original Islamist movement, this loose network of national organizations tends not to be as violent as al-Qaeda or Islamic State, but is dangerous nonetheless. In a two-part essay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali examines how the Brotherhood has made inroads in the U.S. (and even more so in Britain), and how its institutions gain the respect and recognition of government agencies blinkered by political correctness and eager to maintain good relations with Muslim citizens.

The lesson for the U.S. . . . is that liaising with self-appointed “community leaders” will only empower subversive Islamists. The Department of Justice already does this: instructing its Community Relations Service (CRS) to focus on “engaging and building relationships with historically marginalized groups, including the Muslim, Sikh, and transgender communities.” . . . In doing so, the CRS consults groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in its Protecting Places of Worship (PPOW) forums. MPAC has been a historical target for subversion by the Hamas-sympathizing Palestine Committee, seeking “an entry point to use them to pressure Congress and the decision-makers in America.”

A Pew Research report found the Muslim Brotherhood was also involved in founding ISNA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim American Society (MAS). The Palestine Committee proposed using “the network of Islamic schools” run by ISNA to disseminate propaganda which would make Muslim Americans sympathetic toward Hamas.

The first priority for the Trump administration to disarm the terror threat posed by Islamists is to ban the Muslim Brotherhood, and any affiliated organization, from operating in America. Its designation as a terrorist group is long overdue. This should have been done in 2004, when Khaled Sheikh Mohammed admitted that he had masterminded 9/11 after attending the Brotherhood’s training camps.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.