Given the dreadfully thin slate of policy options in the Middle East, the U.S. must make tough decisions. The first is to make a serious and concerted effort to begin developing strategic priorities. Nowhere are we more isolated than in the Muslim world, and we are in no position to dictate terms of an alliance against the main danger: global jihad. As the above examples illustrate, the differences between the Brotherhood and the jihadists abound, and it is imperative to differentiate them. To avoid doing so invites failure in a central foreign policy priority: to broaden our base of support, widen our alliance, and split and shrink our enemies. Nothing will be gained by portraying groups like the Muslim Brotherhood on the basis of subjective criteria and wishful thinking. What we argue is that while pursuing cooperation with Sufis and Wasat and other centrist parties, we should begin to explore whether the moderate current of the Muslim Brotherhood is a worthy interlocutor.

Robert S. Leiken is Director of the Immigration and National Security Programs at The Nixon Center and the author of the forthcoming "Europe's Angry Muslims". Steven Brooke is a Research Associate at The Nixon Center.

Editor's note: National Interest online issued a correction to the above article, available here. We regret the error.