Jordan’s careful war calculus in balance as Islamic regime’s future unknown, expert says

Amman, like many countries in the region, has not been spared by the Islamic regime. In Jordan, an American THAAD missile battery in Muwaffaq Salti Air Base was destroyed by Iran earlier this month, according to a CNN analysis of satellite images. There have also been reports of destruction as a result of shrapnel falling on the country.

While Amman has so far been committed to maintaining the delicate line of neutrality, Winter theorized that “this line could shift” and that the kingdom could adopt a more anti-Tehran stance if the regime continued its attacks and/or if Jordan suspected that the Islamic regime was collapsing.

Jordan’s Military Media Directorate confirmed on Saturday said that the Jordan Armed Forces (JAF) had intercepted 158 out of 164 Iranian rockets and drones that targeted vital facilities in the kingdom during the second week of the ongoing war. Of these interceptions, 85 missiles and 79 drones were launched towards vital targets inside Jordan, the directorate claimed.

While largely successful at impeding the attacks, Public Security Department Spokesperson Lt. Col. Amer Sartawi confirmed that nine people were wounded in the kingdom due to 93 reported incidents involving fallen objects, as reported in The Jordan Times.

“At present, uncertainty regarding the outcome of the war and the future of the Iranian regime explains Jordan’s cautious approach, preserving its strategic partnership with the United States and Israel while avoiding burning bridges with Iran,” Winter said. “For example, the Iranian embassy in Amman remains operational, and diplomatic relations continue despite the hostilities.”

Amman has avoided paying a regional price for intercepting the attacks, which numerous Gulf states have also done, by presenting the action as “defending its sovereignty” and maintaining “that its airspace will not serve as a battlefield,” Winter noted.

While regional players have been more than understanding, the presence of Iran-backed Islamist groups in the country will continue to pose some risk domestically.

“Within the kingdom, there are actors, whether from the Muslim Brotherhood or other pro-Palestinian groups, who would prefer to see Jordan allow Iranian missiles to pass through its airspace on their way to Israel. Some have also called throughout the war for Jordan to join the ‘ring of fire’ of violent resistance against Israel and have even carried out attacks against Israel along the Jordanian border,” Winter explained, adding that such actions were what led Jordan to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood in April.

“Jordan serves as a geographic buffer between Israel and various terrorist threats. Still, there remains a risk of activity by terrorist cells affiliated with Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, or pro-Iranian militias – particularly those from Iraq – seeking to operate against Israel from Jordanian territory or to exploit vulnerabilities along the long border between the two countries,” Winter continued.

He pointed out that, concurrently, many Jordanians also support the kingdom’s position and “call for a framework that does not force a choice between Israel and Iran, but rather one that places Jordan’s national interests first.”

He explained that this was linked to the broader debate “over the kingdom’s national identity and whether its primary commitment is to itself or to wider Islamic or Palestinian circles.”

Discussing comments made by Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty during his visit to Amman this week, which saw that official call for more intense security coordination between Arab nations, Winter said that there have long been talks of establishing an “Arab NATO,” but such discussions “have not translated into concrete action.”

It is difficult to assess what an Arab NATO would look like, given the lack of development in that direction, but “in any case, in my assessment, Israel is not expected to play a significant role in it,” Winter explained.

He went on to say that the rationale behind the Egyptian initiative was not only to help Gulf states confront Iranian threats, but also to “fill the regional vacuum resulting from Iran’s weakening” and to create “an Arab force that could serve as a balancing counterweight to Israel and deter it.”

The current war has heightened concerns in Egypt and Jordan about a potential Israeli-American hegemony in the region, he said, which they fear could translate into unilateral, expansionist, and forceful policies in the Palestinian arena and beyond, according to Winter.

Adding to the complex fears of such an Israeli-US hegemony, he said that there were growing concerns in Jordan about Jerusalem’s West Bank policies and the annexation of territory undermining the Palestinian Authority.

Any “erosion of the status quo” at the Temple Mount, a holy site to Abrahamic religions known to Muslims as Al-Aqsa

Mosque, could further deteriorate Israeli-Jordanian relations, he said, noting that Amman had invested heavily in creating an “alternative homeland for the Palestinians and resolving the Palestinian issue.”

He went on to address “these concerns,” saying that, “if they materialize,” the result would likely be “a further deterioration in Israeli-Jordanian peace relations.”

Jordan is likely to work with other Arab and Muslim countries vis-à-vis Washington and other international actors to prevent such a scenario, which would mean crossing what constitutes “a red line for the kingdom.”

Jordan, Winter explained, wants to “protect the chance for a future two-state solution” for the Palestinians and to ensure maintenance of its own “custodianship in Jerusalem” of the holy sites [agreed to by Israel after the Six Day War], Winter concluded. Jordan often warns that altering this status quo would affect its relationship with Israel.