Op-Ed: How Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Qatar Are Dismantling Political Islam?

Palestinian women in Gaza display a poster of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. Hamas’s ideological lineage is rooted in the Brotherhood, now fading as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar move to dismantle its legacy.

By Ahmed Fathi

 

New York: Although I’ve typically steered clear of writing on the Middle East—driven by my secular and liberal leanings and a belief that the region often devours nuance—I now find myself drawn back in. The devastation unfolding in Gaza, and Israel’s ongoing military operation that many international observers now call a genocide, has shifted the conversation from tragedy to tectonic change even reaching political Islam.

While I do not romanticize armed resistance, I also refuse to engage in the appeasement of regimes or factions—whether state or non-state—that perpetuate authoritarianism, religious militancy, or use civilian suffering as political leverage. What we are witnessing now is a rare moment where Arab regimes themselves appear to be confronting a monster they once tolerated—if not empowered.

Although the humanitarian catastrophe is urgent and undeniable, what unfolded diplomatically at the recent Two-State Solution conference at the United Nations may have longer-term consequences for the region’s ideological landscape. The headline wasn’t France, UK, Canada or Portugal recognizing the State of Palestine—it was the joint declaration by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, calling for Hamas to disarm, withdraw from governance, and effectively disappear from the political equation.

That statement may go down as the first unified Arab move to dismantle the legacy of political Islam—or, more cautiously, as yet another gesture that stirs headlines without shifting policy. And I, for one, am not ready to celebrate just yet.

The Regional Review: From Revolutions to Regression

To understand why this moment feels consequential, we must rewind the regional tape.

Since the Arab Spring, the Middle East has endured more than just chaos—it has endured competing models of governance: secular autocracies, Islamist populism, proxy warfare, and, in rare cases, transitional experiments. Each country made its own bet on survival, ideology, or revolution.

• Egypt offers a distinct case shaped by direct security threats. After the 2013 ousting of President Mohamed Morsi, Egypt launched a sustained campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood and waged a years-long counterinsurgency in Sinai targeting ISIS and Hamas-linked militants.

  
  

  

  Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi seen during prayer alongside the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and top officials. His government remains firmly opposed to political Islam, citing national security threats from Islamist groups.

  Under President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Egypt has remained firm in its opposition to political Islam, viewing it as a national security threat rather than a political alternative. While democratic progress remains limited, Cairo has played a constructive humanitarian role during the Gaza crisis—keeping the Rafah crossing open for aid and medical evacuations, even as Israeli procedures obstruct much of the relief.

  
  

  Egypt’s stance on Hamas reflects hard-earned lessons in regional security and aligns with broader calls for the group’s demilitarization and political exit.

  
  

De facto Syrian regime leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (left) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (right) symbolize two opposing paths in the Arab world—one mired in sectarian legacy, the other attempting a top-down pivot away from political Islam.

• Saudi Arabia has undertaken a significant ideological shift in recent years. Once known for quietly promoting Salafi doctrine, the Kingdom—under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—has repositioned itself as a champion of economic modernization and regional recalibration. Through the Vision 2030 initiative, Saudi Arabia is seeking to diversify its economy, reduce the influence of religious hardliners, and project a new image on the global stage.

  
  

  While the Kingdom maintains a strong centralized governance model, it has increasingly distanced itself from political Islam, viewing it as incompatible with its long-term goals of stability, investment, and controlled reform.

  
  

  This pragmatic outlook also informs Saudi Arabia’s renewed engagement with Syria’s de facto leadership, a move that reflects Riyadh’s growing emphasis on regional stability over ideological alignment. The decision to support the joint Arab declaration calling for Hamas to disarm and step away from governance aligns with this broader repositioning—a strategic shift away from ideologically driven movements in favor of state-centric diplomacy and controlled order.

Sheikh Tamim the Emir of Qatar embraces the late Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent cleric and leading ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood—once a symbol of Doha’s support for political Islam, now at odds with its stance on Hamas.

• Qatar, for its part, remains the most complicated actor in the region. For years, Doha served as a host and financial backer to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other political Islam movements across the Muslim world. It cultivated influence through ideological patronage while simultaneously positioning itself as a U.S. ally and mediator in regional conflicts. Today, Qatar walks a delicate tightrope—part Western partner, part humanitarian donor, part pragmatic power broker.

  
  

  Its inclusion in the recent joint declaration calling for Hamas to disarm and withdraw from governance is both surprising and strategically telling. Whether this signals a genuine shift in policy or a calculated diplomatic maneuver remains to be seen—but it reflects the growing pressure on even the most ambivalent actors to align against political Islam’s destabilizing legacy.

  
  

Iranian women protest under the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom” — a powerful rebuke of political Islam and clerical rule.

• Iran, meanwhile, is increasingly overextended and isolated. Its network of non-state actors—Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and various Iraqi militias—is under economic strain and diplomatic pressure. Sanctions limit Tehran’s ability to sustain these proxies, while regional powers move away from ideological alliances. Hamas, once a key Iranian asset, now faces Arab demands to disarm, reflecting a wider decline in support for Iranian-backed militancy across the region.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan speaks during a public address. Once a vocal supporter of political Islam, Türkiye has shifted focus toward economic recovery and regional diplomacy.

• Türkiye, once the outspoken patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, has grown notably quiet. Under President Erdoğan, Ankara previously amplified political Islam across the region, hosting exiled Brotherhood figures and aligning foreign policy accordingly. But with domestic economic struggles, rising inflation, and a need to mend ties with Gulf states, Erdoğan has shifted focus inward. Islamist diplomacy has given way to economic pragmatism and geopolitical recalibration.

Hamas: From Vanguard to Liability

What’s changed is not just the alignment—but the framing. Hamas is no longer seen as the “resistance.” It's now portrayed—even by key Arab states—as an obstacle to Palestinian unity, a proxy of Tehran, and a source of instability.

Armed Hamas fighters during a show of force. The group now faces growing regional calls to disarm and withdraw from political control in Gaza.

For Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar to openly call for Hamas’s disarmament is nothing short of seismic. It cuts through decades of double-speak and marks the beginning of what could be a coordinated de-legitimization campaign. If sustained, it could remove the ideological anchor of political Islam from one of its most high-profile strongholds. But the key word is: "if."

Caution from History

We have seen bold declarations before. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative promised normalization in exchange for Palestinian statehood. It was shelved and sidelined. Saudi Arabia has vacillated between Islamist appeasement and repression depending on the decade. Qatar has a history of hedging, funding Islamists while hosting U.S. military bases. Egypt—though firm on Hamas—remains unreformed at its core.

Authoritarian regimes in the region are known not for follow-through, but for strategic ambiguity.

This isn’t skepticism for its own sake—it’s a lesson from precedent. Arab regimes can make loud announcements while quietly doing the opposite behind closed doors. Unless this declaration is backed by sustained political, economic, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas—and a viable plan to build an alternative—it risks becoming just another summit soundbite.

Is This the End of Political Islam?

There’s no question the momentum has turned. Political Islam—once ascendant in the post-2011 uprisings—is in retreat.

• The Muslim Brotherhood is shattered across multiple capitals.

• Hezbollah is ideologically disoriented, more involved in Lebanese collapse than “resistance.”

• The Houthis, increasingly isolated, are running out of both friends and funds.

• Hamas is being squeezed diplomatically, militarily, and financially.

But Islamism doesn’t die in press releases. It feeds on disenfranchisement, authoritarian failure, foreign intervention, and despair. Unless Arab governments offer real governance, accountability, and inclusion, these movements—or worse iterations of them—will eventually resurface.

Conclusion: Applaud the Declaration, Watch the Execution

The joint declaration by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar may be the clearest signal yet that the Arab world is ready to move beyond the era of political Islam. But declarations don’t dismantle ideologies—actions do.

So, what happens if Hamas refuses to disarm? Refuses to step aside. Will these Arab powers, emboldened by their newfound alignment, back their words with political and financial pressure? Will they support an alternative Palestinian leadership—or fall back into strategic silence, as they have in the past?

If this moment is to mark more than a rhetorical shift, it must be followed by a clear regional roadmap: one that includes support for Palestinian political renewal, economic recovery, and governance that rejects both militancy and repression.

Otherwise, this bold declaration risks becoming yet another chapter in the long cycle of Middle Eastern ambiguity—loud on the stage, silent in the aftermath.