Al-Rifai, from the Politics and Society Institute, argues that Israel represents a hegemonic project seeking to reshape the region at the expense of Arab stability

• Al-Rifai: Our priority must be unequivocal and without hesitation-Jordan first, Jordan last, and Jordan always.

• Al-Rifai: Between the Iranian and Israeli projects, Jordan must remain steadfast in its position-a state that understands its interests and safeguards its sovereignty.

• Al-Rifai: The ongoing conflict is a struggle over influence, hegemony, and balances of power, in which multiple projects intersect, each with its own calculations, concerns, and instruments.

• Al-Rifai: A balanced reading requires rejecting both illusions-the illusion of absolving the Iranian project in the name of Palestine, and the illusion of overlooking the Israeli project in the name of confronting Iran.

• Al-Rifai: Iran is a state driven by a political project, not merely a state of religious rhetoric; it is a mistake to reduce it to a single definition that frames it solely as a religious state.

• Al-Rifai: Israel is not merely a normal state engaged in a border dispute; rather, it is a hegemonic project seeking to reshape the region at the expense of Arab stability.

• Al-Rifai: Protecting the West Bank and preventing the displacement of its people constitutes a direct matter of Jordanian national security.

• Al-Rifai: Jordanian decision-making is not shaped by emotional pressure or slogans; it is constructed within circles of strategic assessment and grounded in long-standing experience in managing crises.

• Al-Rifai: Jordan cannot continue to defend Arab stability and just Arab causes unless it first preserves its own stability and safeguards its institutions.

• Al-Rifai: Today, Jordan faces the imperative of awareness and cohesion, as well as the responsibility of protecting the state and maintaining a clear strategic compass.

Amman – Former Prime Minister Samir Al-Rifai affirmed that, amid the current regional transformations, Jordan’s priority must remain unequivocal and without hesitation: “Jordan first, Jordan last, and Jordan always and forever.” He stressed that preserving the Jordanian state, safeguarding its institutions, and maintaining its stability constitute the foundation upon which any Jordanian role in defending just Arab causes or engaging in regional and international dynamics must be built. He further called for a balanced reading of the conflict, warning against falling into two opposing illusions: the first lies in absolving the Iranian project or overlooking its practices in the name of the Palestinian cause; the second lies in ignoring the nature and dangers of the Israeli project under the pretext of confronting Iran. He emphasized that both illusions lead to a deficient reading that fails to reflect the true nature and complexity of the conflict.

These remarks were delivered during a dialogue session at the Politics and Society Institute, as part of the “Generation of Modernization” project series, under the title: “The Current Regional War and Jordanian National Security: The U.S.–Israeli War on Iran,” attended by a distinguished group of researchers, experts, stakeholders, and youth.

At the outset of his remarks, Al-Rifai noted that the current regional situation should not be interpreted as a purely religious conflict, nor as a simplistic moral confrontation between camps of good and evil. Rather, he argued, it is a struggle over influence, hegemony, and balances of power, in which multiple projects intersect-each with its own calculations, concerns, and instruments. This, he explained, necessitates a sober political reading grounded in the logic of the state and national interest, rather than in emotional mobilization or ideological alignment.

He underscored that such an approach constitutes the essential entry point for understanding the complexities of the regional landscape, warning that reducing or oversimplifying the conflict weakens the capacity to engage with it effectively and leads to biased or inaccurate interpretations that do not serve national interests, particularly those of Jordan.

Al-Rifai further asserted that the Israeli project, in its current form under the dominance of the nationalist and religious far-right, represents a grave threat to the broader regional order. He pointed out that this project no longer confines itself to managing occupation but seeks to reshape political, demographic, and geographic realities in ways that undermine the prospects for a political settlement and push toward the liquidation of the two-state solution.

He added that this trajectory opens the door to dangerous scenarios, including the potential displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new realities that could directly impact Jordan-politically, security-wise, and demographically-thus rendering these developments a direct matter of Jordanian national security.

In this context, Samir Al-Rifai stressed that the West Bank can no longer be treated merely as a matter of political or humanitarian solidarity; rather, it has become a direct issue of Jordanian national security. This is particularly evident in light of the escalating risks associated with population displacement or the erosion of the territory’s political substance-developments that compel Jordan to keep this file at the core of its strategic and diplomatic thinking.

He affirmed that protecting the West Bank, and preventing any trajectory that could lead to the displacement of Palestinians or the undermining of prospects for an independent Palestinian state, must remain a Jordanian priority, as it constitutes an integral part of safeguarding Jordan’s national security and regional stability.

Conversely, Al-Rifai emphasized that Iran cannot be adequately understood if reduced solely to its religious or sectarian dimension. Rather, it should be viewed as a state driven by a political project, possessing a clear vision of its interests and objectives, and operating within the region according to the logic of power and influence.

He noted that Iran has, at various stages, utilized religion and sectarian identity as tools of mobilization and instruments of influence. However, its regional conduct has not been guided by purely sectarian motivations, but rather by calculated strategies in which state interests take precedence over all other considerations-an approach that necessitates analyzing its political behavior within this framework.

He added that reducing Iran to a purely religious state represents a common analytical error, as its behavior reflects a distinct political pragmatism, wherein ideology is deployed when it serves strategic objectives and deferred or disregarded when it does not align with its interests.

Al-Rifai also addressed the transformations that have reshaped the region since 2003, noting that the occupation of Iraq constituted a critical turning point that produced a profound imbalance in the Arab regional order. This shift created exceptional opportunities for Iran to expand and entrench its influence across several Arab arenas, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

He explained that this expansion enabled Iran to build an extensive network of influence and multiple leverage points; however, it also proved costly on several levels-both in terms of draining Iranian resources and in its destabilizing impact on Arab states, weakening national institutions, and reinforcing the logic of militias and subnational identities.

He further observed that this trajectory has also had negative repercussions for the Iranian population itself, which has borne the burdens of this expansion at the expense of its developmental and economic priorities, highlighting the trade-offs inherent in Iran’s management of its regional policies.

In analyzing the nature of regional relations, Al-Rifai underscored that states do not operate according to emotional considerations or moral loyalty, but rather on the basis of interest calculations and necessity. This is clearly reflected in Iran’s relations with a number of states, including Russia and Turkey.

He explained that these relationships, despite historical tensions, have witnessed varying degrees of coordination and mutual understanding whenever interests have converged-underscoring the fundamentally pragmatic nature of international politics and reaffirming that alliances are built on interests rather than ideological alignment.

He added that Iran is neither a charitable organization nor a state governed by emotion, but rather a state fundamentally driven by interests-a reality that explains the nature of its behavior and movements across the region.

He further noted that Iran has not engaged in direct military confrontation with Israel except in limited contexts related to preserving its deterrence and prestige, reflecting the precision of its calculations in managing the conflict, far removed from propaganda or rhetorical slogans.

On the domestic front, Samir Al-Rifai warned of the risks of polarization and societal fragmentation, noting that social media has often contributed to deepening divisions and fueling discourses of accusation and oversimplification. This, he argued, weakens societal resilience and serves projects that benefit from state disintegration.

He emphasized that safeguarding public awareness, promoting rational discourse, and clearly distinguishing between legitimate opinion and incitement are no longer secondary cultural concerns, but have become essential components of political and social security.

Regarding Jordan’s position, Al-Rifai stressed that decision-making in Jordan is not shaped by emotional pressure, populist rhetoric, or political posturing, but is instead formulated within state institutions and strategic assessment circles, grounded in extensive and accumulated experience in managing regional crises.

He noted that this approach has been a key factor in Jordan’s ability to maintain its stability and balance, and to avoid many of the destabilizing trajectories experienced by other states in the region.

He affirmed that Jordan must remain firm in its position amid competing regional projects-a state that understands its interests, protects its sovereignty, and refuses to become an arena for proxy conflicts or a space for disorder.

He also underscored the importance of preserving the international credibility that Jordan has accumulated over decades, considering it one of the country’s key sources of strength and a pillar of its regional and global role, alongside the need to strengthen Arab relations and engage in a more stable regional environment.

He pointed out that the coming phase requires greater reliance on self-capacity, enhanced Arab integration, and the expansion of economic and security cooperation among Arab states, in a manner that serves collective interests in confronting shared challenges.

In conclusion, Al-Rifai emphasized that Jordan today faces a responsibility of awareness and the necessity of cohesion, as well as the imperative of protecting the state and maintaining a clear strategic direction. He stressed that rallying around the Jordanian state, the Hashemite leadership, and maintaining confidence in decision-making institutions constitute essential pillars of political resilience in this critical phase.

He added that Jordan was not built by coincidence, nor shaped by slogans, but rather through state consciousness, sacrifice, effort and dedication, wise leadership, and societal loyalty-factors that collectively impose a shared responsibility to preserve and strengthen its stability.

He affirmed that Jordan’s strength and its ability to sustain its regional role depend on preserving internal unity, strengthening national self-confidence, and continuing to adopt a balanced and rational approach in addressing emerging challenges.

He concluded by emphasizing that the coming phase leaves no room for hesitation or division; rather, it requires clarity of strategic direction, firmness of position, and a deep level of political awareness that places Jordan’s national interest above all else and enhances its capacity to navigate an increasingly complex regional environment.

It is worth noting that the Politics and Society Institute is an independent Jordanian think tank operating under a “Think & Do” model. It seeks to bridge academic analysis with practical application in the fields of public policy and political transformation at both the national and regional levels. The institute works to produce knowledge and foster evidence-based political dialogue through research and training programs, as well as discussion platforms that bring together decision-makers, researchers, and youth from Jordan and across the region. It also focuses on building effective partnerships with regional and international institutions concerned with Middle Eastern affairs, contributing to cross-border debates on political reform, regional stability, and geopolitical transformations-thereby reinforcing its role as an influential intellectual platform in Jordan and the wider region.