Since the emergence of Israel as a state in the Palestinian lands, Iran, Israel and the Arab world have been engaged in a convoluted course of developments. Tehran’s position transformed from an ally to an enemy after the 1979 revolution, while the Arab world, who persisted with support for their Arab brothers, have displayed a milder attitude in recent years. With the introduction of the Abraham accords, Arabs further abated their rhetoric and modified their political activism. A popular antipathy with state approaches, however, complicated the condition during crises and disputes.
Due to its involvement in shooting down many Iranian drones that were aiming for Israel, Jordan was led to the center of the conflict between Iran and Israel, drawing criticism from both domestic and regional voices. The reason for Amman’s perilous situation was that Tehran made remarks that seemed to jeopardize Jordan’s participation in the US-led attempt to assist Israel in intercepting the approaching volley. Tehran seems to have warned Jordan that if it persisted in defending Tel Aviv, it would soon come under assault. The row led to diplomatic calls on both sides.
Jordan, which borders Israel, is home to the strongest Palestinian expatriate and has long been seen as strongest ally for Palestine in the area. The authorities have expressed strong disapproval of the Gaza War; King Abdullah has openly supported attempts to arrange for humanitarian delivery within the region, and Queen Rania, who enjoys immense popularity in the country, has made stirring speeches and declarations in support for the people in the occupied territories.
The popular attitude in the country has a similar praxis, as seen by the hundreds of demonstrators who staged protests near the American embassy in the capital for over a fortnight in opposition to US support of the Israeli war machine in Gaza. Given this, the military operation last week has infuriated people inside and outside the country, with online posts portraying King Abdullah’s conduct as betrayal. At a conference in Tehran, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman attempted to defuse the situation by downplaying Amman’s role. “Our relations with Jordan are friendly and during the past months, there have been continuous contacts between the officials of the two countries,” the Iranian official claimed following a political row that could undermine Iranian positions in the region.
Amman maintains that the country’s participation was necessary for self-defense and to safeguard the territorial integrity over its airspace. Jordan’s foreign minister has been an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian causes in diplomatic circles since the outbreak of war in Gaza. The Jordanian army had responded to an analysis that determined there was a genuine threat of Iranian drones and missiles landing on the country. Jordan’s partners in the west jumped to its defense in response to the dispute. “You have to think from the Jordanian perspective, as a neighbor of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories,” stated British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.
Iran and Jordan
Although Amman is not prepared for overt Iranian response, Tehran’s threat is just as unusual as Jordan’s conduct. Iran is more likely to use covert intimidation techniques, though. Tehran has encouraged the internal discontent in the Hashemite kingdom caused by the Gaza war by using both media and paramilitary forces. A presence in Amman following Tehran’s precedent in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon would make it particularly alluring for Tehran to intervene, opening up a direct line of communication with Israel and putting greater strain on the Israeli military and political system.
Iran creates this kind of proxies by intentionally using sectarian dominance in areas with sizable Shiite communities. But there isn’t a sizable Shiite population in Jordan. Still, the Palestinian population makes up between %55 and %70 of Jordan’s population. Calls for Jordan’s monarch to revoke the nation’s 1994 peace pact with Israel have been made following the war in Gaza, but to no avail. High senior Jordanian officials attempt to tread carefully by criticizing Israel nonstop without jeopardizing the pact in an effort to calm popular ire. However, there is a lot of tension with the angry protesters trying to break through the security cordon of the Israeli embassy last month.
The hostility has given Tehran a new path into the country as opposed to the religious one, as it has positioned itself as the main protector and advocate of the Palestinian people while portraying the rulers as betraying their campaign against Israel. The stance both strengthens Tehran’s strategic power and threatens the positions of Israel. It appears that Iran is attempting to intensify the genuine upheaval. Tehran used its intermediaries in Iraq in the initial stages of the conflict to cut off Jordanian oil supply. The two-day endeavor failed, but it sent a message to Jordan that Iran would hold a cost provided that the monarchy adopted the wrong stance. Tehran has been encouraging Amman to employ their nation as a springboard for assaults against Israel, just like what Hamas authorities attempted to achieve in Doha. Groups with affiliations to Tehran utilized Amman as an intermediary to transfer arms from neighboring countries into the Palestinian lands.
Jordan continues to be a vital partner of the United States and a cornerstone of the region’s security. As a result, Amman receives more than $1 billion in aid each year, notably military support. It also demonstrates that the kingdom’s tactical collaboration and communication with Tel Aviv, which is a fundamental aspect of their bond, is still alive despite criticism from inside and the adverse language coming from the administration since October 7, 2023. Analysts questioned whether Amman would stop an Israeli reprisal attack against Tehran from crossing its airspace once the Iranian drones were intercepted. This imagined case illustrates the fine line Jordan must tread in order to maintain both its external obligations, which are essential to its long-term viability, and its internal security.
Jordan’s twofold game-play in the region has put its political and diplomatic positions at stake. Locally, walking against the public stream and neglecting the popular calls may risk the governance’s legitimacy. Internationally, the country is surrounded by opposing forces allied with different viewpoints. Tehran’s engagement in most of these countries and its influence in the dynamic developments of the region may further undermine Amman’s future strategic partnerships, diplomatic relationships, and military involvements. Amman’s maneuver on April 13 is simply legitimized by the remarks about securing the airspace and territorial integrity, but its repercussions entail an intricate network of diplomatic, military and geostrategic postulations that will have their footprints in the future of the nation.
| The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Al-Sarira. |
