https://arab.news/vr3mh
Few countries embody the perils and complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics as vividly as Jordan. Situated at the crossroads of competing powers, rival ideologies and shifting spheres of influence, Jordan does not observe the regional storm from a safe distance — it lives at its very heart.
Geography has made it a buffer, a conduit and, on too many occasions, a front line for crises not of its own making. In such an environment, strategy cannot be driven by abstraction or slogans, it must be driven by sober calculation and an unflinching commitment to national survival.
Recent events have brought this into sharp relief. Iran has launched a series of missile and drone strikes that targeted sovereign territories across the region, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Jordan itself — a stark violation of national borders and international law. These actions have been widely condemned by the affected countries and their partners, with governments underscoring that such attacks constitute “a dangerous escalation” that threatens regional stability and endangers civilians across multiple states.
In today’s interconnected world, defense partnerships and alliance structures are tools of deterrence and stability
Hani Hazaimeh
Jordan’s condemnation of these strikes is not merely rhetorical. When Iranian projectiles cross into international airspace or strike near civilian areas in neighboring states, the notion of sovereignty becomes far more than an abstract principle; it becomes a matter of life and death. The targets were not just military outposts but also civilian infrastructure and population centers — precisely the sort of reckless conduct that undermines the fabric of regional order and fuels broader instability.
In this context, Jordan’s foreign policy — often described by critics as cautious or “balancing” — reveals itself not as ambiguous but based on realism. Balancing is not an ethical failing; it is a survival strategy. Jordan knows its borders are finite, its resources limited and its population under pressure from decades of conflict and displacement around it. Its priority is not to curry favor with any single power but to ensure that its territory, its people and its political autonomy remain intact in the face of forces far larger than itself. Sovereignty does not mean isolation, it means the disciplined management of external relations consistent with national interests.
It is worth challenging simplistic narratives that mistake strategic engagement for subservience or that assert any foreign military presence inherently undermines sovereignty. In today’s interconnected world, defense partnerships and alliance structures are tools of deterrence and stability, not necessarily a loss of autonomy. The crucial question is not the presence of external forces but the terms of engagement, the limits of use and, above all, the control retained by the host nation. Sovereignty in the modern age is not the absence of relations but the capacity to manage them on one’s own terms.
Jordan’s approach reflects this nuanced understanding. Its security cooperation with Western partners — including forces present to bolster deterrence or assist in border management — is not an ideological alignment but a pragmatic choice in a region rife with nonstate actors, spillover conflicts and transnational threats. This calibrated engagement helps buffer pressures from collapsing states and violent extremism without ceding decision-making authority that would compromise national dignity or strategic autonomy.
But Iran’s recent actions demonstrate a troubling disregard for precisely these dynamics. By targeting countries with which it maintains diplomatic relations — including those that have engaged Tehran as interlocutors — it risks alienating potential friends before it even confronts adversaries. Hitting sovereign states that have acted as intermediaries or hosts for diplomatic channels erodes trust and undermines the avenues that might de-escalate conflict. The recent strikes have forced a coalition of condemnation among Gulf states and their partners — a remarkable demonstration of unity that underscores the threat Iran’s recklessness poses.
Jordan’s stance has been shaped by the terrain it occupies and the threats that emerge from it
Hani Hazaimeh
Consider the broader implications: Jordan and its neighbors have worked for years to maintain a fragile regional equilibrium. This includes economic cooperation, shared security frameworks and diplomatic efforts to mediate disputes between larger powers. When missiles fly indiscriminately, these painstaking strands of cooperation unravel. The statements issued by countries including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and their Western allies not only condemned the attacks but reaffirmed their right to self-defense and collective security — a clear rebuke to unilateral aggression.
Those who do not understand geography will never truly grasp politics. Jordan’s stance has never been shaped by sweeping ideological commitments. Instead, it has been shaped by the terrain it occupies and the threats that emerge from it. When Iranian missiles cross borders, they do not merely challenge sovereignty, they challenge the fundamental premise upon which Middle Eastern stability depends — that borders are sacred and interstate conduct is bound by international norms.
Jordan’s policy, therefore, must and will remain rooted in realism. It is neither isolationist nor blindly aligned. It is, above all, protective of the national interest. Its sovereignty is not threatened by engagement, it is protected by astute diplomacy and a clear-eyed understanding of the forces that surround it.
In this moment of heightened volatility, the world should recognize Jordan not as a timid actor but as a state that understands the true nature of power in a fractured region. Its measured responses, its emphasis on defense — both diplomatic and operational — and its refusal to be dragged into reckless conflict reflect not weakness but resilience. In a neighborhood where some actors still confuse provocation with strategy, Jordan’s tightrope walk is not a sign of indecision but of disciplined statesmanship.
- Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh