Jordan and the Iranian attack: a minimal military role despite provocations
Jordan, an ally of the United States and traditionally proud of its armed forces, finds itself in an unusual position: despite being under attack by Iran, its army has launched no retaliation. This passive attitude contrasts with the recent history of the kingdom, where King Abdullah II has often shown a willingness to use force to defend the country.
An unprecedented attack
Iran, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has launched numerous attacks against Jordan in recent months. These attacks, which include ballistic missiles and drones, have hit both military bases and civilian sites, causing damage to homes and vehicles and injuring dozens of civilians. Despite this, the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) have announced no retaliation.
This situation is particularly surprising given that, in the past, Jordan has responded forcefully to similar threats. In 2015, for example, after the brutal execution of pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh by the Islamic State, King Abdullah promised a "shocking response" and launched numerous airstrikes against ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq.
A controversial military role
The JAF's claims regarding their ability to intercept Iranian missiles have been questioned. US President Donald Trump has stated that it was American forces that shot down the missiles in Jordan, not Jordanian forces. Additionally, a New York Times report revealed that Iran has developed strategies to avoid American air defenses, without mentioning any role for the JAF.
This raises doubts as to whether Jordan is simply claiming credit for American shootdowns to make the interception politically more acceptable in a country where the presence of the United States is controversial.
Why Jordan is not responding?
There are several reasons why Jordan might avoid launching retaliations against Iran. First, about half of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin, and King Abdullah does not want to be seen as a protector of Israel, a country with which Iran has an ideological conflict. Additionally, the presence of thousands of American troops in Jordan could be seen as a threat to the country's sovereignty.
Finally, Jordan may fear that an attack against Iran would provoke further escalation of Iranian attacks. However, the absence of a military response from Jordan is already eroding its deterrence capability, making the country seen as an easy target for Iran.
An uncertain future
The current situation is a clear example of how Jordan finds itself trapped in a regional conflict it did not choose. Despite King Abdullah's statements that Jordan will not be a battlefield for regional conflicts, Iran has turned the country into exactly that. The lack of a military response from Jordan speaks louder than the king's words, and the country's future in this crisis remains uncertain.
Regional context and strategic implications
The current situation in Jordan cannot be understood without considering the broader regional context. The Middle East is a mosaic of unstable alliances and historical rivalries, where every move by an actor can have a chain reaction. Iran, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is seeking to expand its influence in a region already fragmented by conflicts. The choice to strike Jordan rather than Israel, despite the deep ideological enmity between Tehran and Tel Aviv, suggests a calculated strategy.
Iran may have avoided attacking Israel for fear of an even more devastating response from the Jewish state, which has demonstrated advanced military capabilities and an uncompromising will to defend itself. Instead, Jordan, although not directly involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, has become a convenient target. The presence of American military bases in Jordan provides Iran with a pretext to justify its attacks, while the lack of a Jordanian military response reinforces the perception of strategic weakness.
The internal balance: sovereignty and security
Jordan finds itself in a delicate position not only internationally but also domestically. King Abdullah must balance the need to maintain internal stability with the pressure to respond to external attacks. The Jordanian population, with a significant minority of Palestinian origin, is sensitive to issues of sovereignty and national identity. Any action perceived as too close an alignment with the United States or Israel could fuel discontent and protests.
Additionally, the presence of American troops in Jordan is a controversial issue. While Washington provides military and financial support, the local population may see this presence as a violation of national sovereignty. This dilemma is exemplified by the open letter from Amjad al-Majali, which has collected hundreds of signatures calling for the expulsion of American forces. King Abdullah must therefore navigate between the need to protect his country and the risk of alienating a significant portion of the population.
The economic and social consequences
The Iranian attacks are having a significant impact on Jordan's economy, particularly on the tourism sector, one of the country's main sources of income. The security of visitors is at risk, and the perception of instability can deter international tourists. Additionally, collateral damage caused by the debris of intercepted missiles is creating a climate of insecurity among the civilian population.
The injuries and material damage suffered by Jordanian civilians are increasing discontent towards the government. The lack of a clear military response from the JAF could be interpreted as a lack of protection from the institutions. This could lead to a crisis of confidence in the armed forces and the government, with potential long-term political repercussions.
The role of the United States and regional alliances
The United States, as Jordan's main ally, finds itself in a delicate position. On the one hand, Washington is committed to protecting its strategic interests in the region, including the military presence in Jordan. On the other hand, any direct intervention could be seen as further interference in a conflict that many countries in the region would prefer to resolve internally.
President Donald Trump's statement regarding the role of American forces in shooting down Iranian missiles raises questions about the transparency of information. If the JAF is indeed claiming credit for operations conducted by American forces, this could be an attempt to make the presence of the US military in Jordan politically more acceptable. However, this strategy could also fuel suspicions and conspiracy theories, further complicating the situation.
Future prospects and possible scenarios
The future of Jordan in this crisis will depend on several factors. First, King Abdullah's ability to maintain national unity and manage internal and external pressures. Second, Iran's willingness to continue the attacks and the response of regional and international powers.
If Jordan continues to avoid direct military action, it could become an even easier target for Iranian attacks, further eroding its deterrence. On the other hand, military intervention could trigger an escalation that the country is unable to control. The safest path may be that of active diplomacy, seeking alliances and mediation to reduce tensions.
The current situation in Jordan is a complex example of how regional and internal dynamics can intertwine unpredictably. The lack of a clear military response reflects not only strategic challenges but also the political and social pressures that King Abdullah must face. The country's future in this crisis remains uncertain, but the ability to navigate these turbulent waters will be crucial for its long-term stability.
Editorial Note and Disclaimer
The guides and content published on GoYou are the result of independent research and analysis activities, for informational, educational, and in-depth purposes.
GoYou does not constitute a journalistic publication or an editorial product pursuant to Law No. 62/2001 and does not engage in real-time information activities.
The GoYou project does not provide professional, technical, legal, or financial advice and disclaims any liability for the improper use of the information published.
In the Crypto sector, every investment involves risks: the reader is invited to always inform themselves independently before making any decision.