Jordan Between Challenges and Balancing Acts in Confronting the West Bank Annexation Project

In recent months, Israel’s political arena has witnessed an unprecedented surge in far-right rhetoric advocating the extension of sovereignty over significant parts of the West Bank, particularly the Jordan Valley. This escalation, reflected in increasingly radical statements from Israeli ministers, has reignited regional and international debates over the scope of Israeli control, the future of the Palestinian national project, and the resulting implications for Jordan’s regional role and strategic posture.

Concurrently, the shooting attack carried out by Palestinians at the Ramot junction in occupied Jerusalem—claiming six Israeli lives and injuring fifteen—proved to be a consequential field development. It intensified domestic debate within Israel on the annexation question: would annexation further fuel individual Palestinian resistance operations, or would it instead provide the Israeli government with new justifications to prioritize security over any political process or negotiations, as demanded by certain influential political circles?

These dynamics have placed Jordan at a critical juncture. Mounting evidence suggests that the Israeli government is edging toward the imposition of a new de facto reality in the West Bank, facilitated by implicit American acquiescence. While annexation has long figured on Jordan’s strategic horizon, the current momentum has brought it perilously close to the core of Jordan’s national security. Should annexation materialize, it would not only alter the political geography but also undermine the two-state solution, preempt any prospective final settlement, and potentially precipitate the mass displacement of Palestinians into Jordan. Such an outcome would strike at the foundations of the Wadi Araba Treaty. Though the region has weathered political storms before, this episode carries unusual intensity and far-reaching consequences.

The central challenge for Jordan lies in calibrating an effective response—one that renders annexation prohibitively costly for Israel while minimizing domestic and regional burdens. A spectrum of options must be considered: the temporary closure of borders, akin to Egypt’s management of the Rafah crossing; measured political and diplomatic escalation, including suspension of certain aspects of the Wadi Araba Treaty; or the selective downgrading of cooperation in critical areas. Such steps, carefully executed, could slow the advance of Israel’s far right.

Jordan can also pursue broader Arab alignment, particularly with states that have publicly opposed annexation, such as the United Arab Emirates, which has declared the issue a “red line.” Deeper engagement with the European Union—especially member states that have recently recognized Palestine—could reinforce this front. Likewise, recalibrated understandings with Washington are vital to avert an explicit U.S. endorsement of annexation, while highlighting its destabilizing regional repercussions. Above all, Jordan must preserve a posture of deliberate deterrence toward Israel, balancing firmness with prudence so as not to compromise strategic international relationships or trigger direct confrontation.

Equally urgent is the need to prepare for the possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority should annexation proceed. Jordan would then confront profound questions: should the Authority be treated as a government-in-exile? What would be the legal and political contours of such a relationship? Could Jordan, in concert with other states, pursue international protection for Palestinians through the United Nations, thereby repositioning the Palestinian question on the UN agenda via a carefully crafted legal strategy?

Jordan undoubtedly retains meaningful leverage, though it has thus far revealed its hand incrementally—through diplomatic communiqués, high-level consultations, discreet warnings, and ongoing coordination with Palestinians and Western capitals. Yet contingency planning for even the most daunting and unconventional scenarios is as crucial as the immediate tactical steps.

In conclusion, while Jordan lacks the means to unilaterally halt annexation, it can ensure that the project becomes a politically costly endeavor for Israel. The essential task for Amman is to convey unmistakably to the international community that annexation is not a routine administrative maneuver, but a strategic rupture that threatens regional stability and reopens long-dormant files of security and conflict.