The statement by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Syria not only critiques the Iranian regime’s actions but also responds directly to rumours suggesting that the Brotherhood was seeking rapprochement with Tehran. This context is crucial, especially given the Brotherhood’s historical relationship with Hamas, a Palestinian resistance movement with strong ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. Hamas, which shares ideological roots with the Brotherhood, has maintained a complex relationship with Tehran, receiving Iranian support for its resistance efforts against Israel. However, this relationship has strained at times, particularly due to Iran’s support for the Assad regime during the Syrian civil war—a regime the Brotherhood vehemently opposes.
MB is known for easily changing its political positions as long as the change serves its political interests. In 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria decided to suspend its opposition activities, apparently in the hope that President Bashar al-Assad’s government would be open to a negotiated solution that would allow the group’s return to Syria. However, the Assad regime did not respond to this peace gesture, which caused significant embarrassment for the Brotherhood’s leader at the time, Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, and further weakened his position within the organization. A year later, at the end of his term, Bayanouni stepped down, and his faction from Aleppo was defeated in internal elections held in July 2010. This marked a turning point in the Brotherhood’s internal dynamics and strategic direction.
Denial of Rapprochement
In this light, the recent statement serves as a public reaffirmation of the Brotherhood’s longstanding opposition to the Iranian regime, explicitly refuting any rumors of softening or negotiations. By reasserting its ideological and political stance, the Brotherhood makes clear that there is no basis for rapprochement as long as Iran continues its aggressive policies in Syria, especially its support for Bashar al-Assad. The Brotherhood’s past alignment with Hamas, despite its connections to Iran, underscores the complexity of the relationship but ultimately shows a firm stance when core principles, such as opposition to Assad, are at stake.
Reinforcing Anti-Iranian Sentiment
The Brotherhood’s rejection of any alignment with Tehran also serves to reassure its base, particularly in the Syrian context where anti-Iranian sentiment runs high due to the regime’s involvement in the civil war. While Hamas has navigated a more nuanced relationship with Iran for tactical reasons, the Syrian Brotherhood draws a clear line, distancing itself from any Iranian influence. The statement emphasizes opposition to Iranian militias, demographic changes, and sectarian policies, dispelling any doubts about their commitment to resisting Iranian expansionism in Syria.
By emphasizing that rapprochement is impossible, not only because of military and political reasons but due to a deep ideological divide, the Brotherhood draws attention to Iran’s manipulation of Islamic values for political gain. This is a direct contrast to the Brotherhood’s vision of Islamic governance and Arab identity. In distancing itself from Tehran, the Brotherhood also indirectly signals a divergence from Hamas’ pragmatic relationship with Iran, reinforcing its commitment to the Syrian revolution and Arab nationalist interests.
Rejection of Iranian Outreach to Islamic Movements
The statement also tackles Iran’s efforts to communicate with Islamic movements in the region, likely a reference to its outreach to groups like Hamas. The Brotherhood makes it clear that it views such outreach as insincere, seeing it as a vehicle for Iran’s geopolitical ambitions rather than a genuine commitment to Islamic causes. This rejection also helps the Brotherhood maintain its ideological purity, contrasting with the complex, sometimes pragmatic, alliances seen with movements like Hamas.
By issuing this statement, the Brotherhood solidifies its relationships with Arab and Gulf states that oppose Iranian expansionism. In rejecting the rumors of rapprochement, the Brotherhood avoids potential backlash from these allies, particularly given the region’s broader rejection of Iranian influence. Unlike Hamas, which balances its ties with both Iran and Arab actors, the Syrian Brotherhood is clear in its alignment with the Arab-Islamic struggle against Iranian influence, reinforcing its political position in the region.
In brief, the statement serves a dual purpose: it not only reinforces the Brotherhood’s ideological stance against the Iranian regime but also dispels rumors of rapprochement, particularly in light of its relationship with Hamas. By categorically rejecting Iranian influence, the Brotherhood distances itself from Tehran’s policies, maintains its credibility with its base and regional allies, and reaffirms its commitment to resisting both the Assad regime and Iran’s broader expansionist agenda. While Hamas continues to navigate its ties with Iran, the Brotherhood’s position is one of unequivocal rejection of any relationship with Tehran as long as it supports the Assad regime.
Here is a translated version of the statement:
The Vision of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria on the Iranian Regime
The contemporary Iranian regime has adopted a nationalist stance and pursues a sectarian, doctrinal, and expansionist agenda aimed at infiltrating the Arab region. It manipulates sectarian grievances, particularly the oppression of Shiites, to fuel a call for vengeance. Simultaneously, it employs a soft, deceptive media language that advocates for national unity and resistance against common enemies.
We, in the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, had an astute assessment and a clear stance regarding this esoteric regime from its early days. We recognized it as an imminent threat to the nation and the region. This position was articulated in the book “Khomeinism: Anomaly in Beliefs, Anomaly in Positions,” written by one of the group’s prominent figures, Sheikh Saeed Hawwa, may God have mercy on him, during the Iranian revolution.
In truth, the Iranian project competes with the Western Zionist project for influence over the Arab region. After initial tensions with the Iranian revolution in 1979, and following the first and second Gulf wars, the West concluded that the Iranian sectarian project is an adversary that can be negotiated with. On the other hand, the Islamic project, as represented by the Islamic movement, was deemed an enemy to be eradicated. Consequently, Western interests aligned to support the Iranian sectarian project in the region, making the strategic decision to permit the regime’s expansion. This tolerance allowed the Iranian regime to solidify itself as a pivotal regional power under an international umbrella.
In Iraq, the Iranian regime collaborated with the American occupiers, and through its cunning tactics, gained control over the political, military, security, media, economic, and cultural structures of the state. This control was achieved after a brutal, bloody sectarian war that ravaged the land and people, imposing a new reality on the country and altering its demographic, political, and economic landscape.
The Iranian regime has replicated this behavior in both Yemen and Lebanon and is actively working to extend its influence throughout other Arab and Islamic countries, most notably in the Gulf states.
In Syria, the Iranian regime chose to side with the brutal and genocidal regime of Bashar al-Assad, aiding him in the destruction of the Syrian people to crush their will for a free and dignified life. One of its affiliates in the region even boasted that Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, was responsible for convincing the Russians to intervene at the end of 2015, saving Bashar al-Assad, who was on the verge of collapse within two weeks. By doing so, the Iranian regime trampled on all values, norms, and covenants, as well as its proclaimed Islamic principles, and aligned itself with a despised sectarian regime that falsely claims nationalism and secularism, binding it in a fateful alliance.
The regime exploited Syria’s crucial geostrategic position as a base to train its militias, drawn from Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. It also developed a comprehensive strategy to entrench its presence and legitimize it in a manner that complicates any future efforts to curtail its influence in Syria. This also bolsters its expansion toward other countries, tightening the noose on Jordan and the Gulf states.
Anyone who observes Syria today can clearly see the dangers posed by the Iranian regime’s security, military, cultural, and economic encroachment. The number of Iranian-backed militia fighters is estimated at 100,000, a figure confirmed by the statement of Revolutionary Guards Commander Hussein Salami in 2020. These forces are spread across 50 bases and 515 military points throughout most of the Syrian governorates, particularly those bordering liberated areas and southern Syria. Of these militia forces, over 10,000 fighters have been naturalized and integrated into the Syrian army, ensuring the security of the vital land supply route from Iran to Lebanon through Iraqi and Syrian territory.
The Iranian regime’s influence has not been limited to its security and military presence. From the early stages, it also embarked on a systematic cultural and ideological infiltration. Before the Assad family’s rule, Twelver Shiites made up only 0.5% of Syria’s population, and there was no Shiite seminary in the country. The first seminary, the Zainabiya Seminary, was established in Damascus in 1976. After 2011, the number of seminaries increased, now exceeding 69.
With the support and funding of Shiite authorities, more than 500 Husseiniyas were constructed in Syrian cities and villages by 2019. Additionally, under the direction of Bashar al-Assad and through a government mandate, 10 Shiite government schools were established under the name “The Greatest Messenger,” teaching the Twelver Shiite sectarian curriculum. Moreover, five private Iranian universities opened branches in Syria, along with numerous Iranian cultural centers in the governorates of Deir ez-Zor, Aleppo, the Syrian coast, Damascus and its countryside, Daraa, and elsewhere. These centers aim to attract local populations, particularly children, by offering financial incentives and scholarships, while instilling admiration for Iranian leaders and symbols in the minds of the younger generation.
Economically, the Iranian regime has supported Bashar al-Assad’s government to finance the war and alleviate the pressure on the Syrian currency, preventing its collapse. A key aspect of this support has been the production and trafficking of drugs, particularly Captagon, which has become a significant source of funding for the regime and its allied militias. The Iranian regime also signed a series of economic agreements, effectively seizing control of many aspects of Syrian wealth. The most recent of these agreements, signed in April 2023, encompasses the banking, oil, industry, labor, tourism, and housing sectors, further entrenching Iranian influence and control over the Syrian state.
As a result, Iran’s strategic hold over Syria deepened, with the country becoming increasingly valuable to the Iranian regime. Throughout the years of the Syrian revolution, Iran’s unwavering support for Bashar al-Assad’s bloody regime remained constant, a key pillar in its policy driven by sectarian interests, combining a Shiite religious agenda with Persian nationalist ambitions and expansive interventionist strategies in the region.
We, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, grounded in our Islamic principles and national convictions, and committed to preserving the Arab-Islamic identity of our country, as well as affirming our people’s right to freedom, dignity, and good governance, assert the following:
Firstly, we hold no grudge against the Iranian people, as we don’t against any other people. However, we firmly condemn the policies of the Iranian regime, which attacks our people, nation, and country. We stand in solidarity with our oppressed people, who are struggling for freedom and dignity. Yet, the Iranian regime has chosen to support the criminal and genocidal Syrian regime. Therefore, we cannot establish relations with the Iranian regime as long as it occupies our land, harbors a hostile ideology towards our nation, and its militias continue killing our people.
Secondly, we reject the Iranian presence and its militias on Syrian soil. We also reject the demographic changes and systematic naturalization of these militias, which serve the political goals of the Iranian regime within Syria.
Thirdly, we oppose the use of Syrian territory as a source of disruption, threat, and concern for Arab and Islamic countries by turning it into a drug production hub and smuggling route. We refuse to allow Syria to be used to settle the narrow scores of the Iranian regime with these nations.
Fourthly, we reject the Iranian regime’s expansion within Syria through the establishment of universities, schools, institutes, and Husseiniyas on sectarian and religious grounds, which aim to alter Syria’s national identity and dismantle its Islamic structure.
Fifthly, regarding sectarianism: We are not sectarian and we abhor sectarianism. However, the Iranian regime has taken sectarianism to an extreme, systematically implementing it within its areas of influence and through its militias, which roam freely, killing indiscriminately. These militias engage in hateful sectarian displays that challenge the dignity of Syrian Muslims in their ancestral homeland.
Sixthly, concerning the Iranian regime’s overtures to Islamic movements: We reject the Iranian regime’s ongoing efforts to connect with Islamic movements in various countries, as these attempts seek to curry favor with Arab and Muslim masses and give the regime a popular Islamic façade. This is a cover-up for its crimes and a way to cleanse its hands, stained with the blood of Muslims.
Seventh, on Iran’s stance regarding the Palestinian issue: We acknowledge that the Iranian regime is pursuing a project that competes with the Zionist-Western project for influence in this region. Hence, it raises the banner of resistance and the liberation of Palestine in contrast to the West’s support for the Zionist occupation. However, these two projects—despite their rivalry for dominance—are entangled in sharing influence and exchanging interests within the region.
Through these processes of competition, sharing, and exchange, the Palestinian Islamic resistance movements receive support, while at the same time, the peoples of the region—particularly in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen—are crushed. This is done by perpetuating the tyranny imposed on them, displacing their populations, and altering their identities and demographics, thereby eroding the real fuel for the liberation of Palestine.
In conclusion, we say:
The Iranian regime must understand that the path to establishing good relations with the peoples of the region is through supporting the legitimate demands of the Syrian people for freedom and dignity, not through hollow slogans or militias that kill, destroy cities, uproot trees, and spread corruption across Muslim lands. The road to Jerusalem is paved not through supporting the murderous regime in Damascus, but through ending its tyranny and dictatorship—not through militias that devastate Syrian cities, but by uplifting the people’s right to self-determination.
The Iranian leadership must reconsider its calculations and realize that its true interests lie with the people of this region, particularly the Syrian people, not with their oppressors. History has shown that power fades, control weakens, and criminals ultimately face the consequences of their actions, whether sooner or later.
While the Iranian regime may achieve temporary tactical gains in the present, it is committing a grave historical mistake for which it will pay the price in the coming days.
